Oral
Answers to
Questions

EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION

The Secretary of State was asked—

Supply of Medicines: No Deal

Mohammad Yasin: What recent assessment the Government have made of the effect on the supply of medicines of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

Vicky Foxcroft: What recent assessment the Government have made of the effect on the supply of medicines of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

Diana R. Johnson: What recent assessment the Government have made of the effect on the supply of medicines of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

Stephen Barclay: The Department of Health and Social Care has assessed and contacted 448 suppliers of medicine and has regular and detailed conversations with the industry.

Mohammad Yasin: This week, the Nuffield Trust joined 11 union leaders to warn that no deal would disrupt the supply of life-saving medicine and exacerbate the largest staffing crisis in our NHS’s history. What level of mortality rate is acceptable to the Secretary of State as the price to pay for this devastating no-deal Brexit?

Stephen Barclay: The hon. Gentleman does not reflect the reality of the significant preparation that the industry has done over the last three years, and I pay tribute to it for that. For example, one of the leading insulin manufacturers, Novo Nordisk, has 18 weeks’ worth of supplies, while the Government had asked for six weeks’ worth. The industry has gone above and beyond in its preparation, and a huge amount of work has been done.

Vicky Foxcroft: I was recently contacted by a constituent with a rare condition. She has stopped producing cortisol and needs to take a synthetic form of it to survive. If she  stops taking her medication, she will be dead within 10 days. What does the Secretary of State have to say to my constituent, who is afraid that the Government are gambling with her life?

Stephen Barclay: I would say that we should not be scaring people unnecessarily. The Government have put in place a framework to ensure supply. We have also put in place an express freight service, which will give even more capacity on a 24-hour basis and between two to four days for larger pallets. There is additional capacity, and a huge amount of work has been done on storage, but this is an issue of mutual interest for the UK and the Commission, and we are working on it jointly.

Diana R. Johnson: Anyone who is facing cancer treatment wants to know that they can get the medicine and the medical devices they need as quickly as possible and with certainty. Dr Buscombe from the British Nuclear Medicine Society says that the system for delivering radioactive isotopes in the event of a no-deal Brexit is “fragile”. What does the Secretary of State say to patients who are concerned to hear that?

Stephen Barclay: I was a Health Minister, and as part of business as usual there are always issues of supply, usually with around up to 50 lines. We have had it in the last few weeks with HRT, which is totally unconnected to Brexit. These are issues that the Department is well used to preparing for. It is in the interest of both sides to get this right. Two thirds of Ireland’s medicine comes through the land bridge in Great Britain. This is something that both sides are working to deliver because it is of interest to both of us.

Philip Hollobone: I welcome the Government’s preparations to prevent medicine shortages in the event of no deal and the fact that the Secretary of State highlighted the impact this will have on the Republic of Ireland. As he rightly says, two thirds of medicines to the Republic come through and over UK motorways, so it is in the EU’s interests as well to prevent no deal.

Stephen Barclay: My hon. Friend is right. This is about preparing. It is not about scaring people unnecessarily. Around 220 lorries impact Ireland. This is of mutual interest, and we want to get it right with them. That is why we are working with member states on this. It is not just about stock and not just about flow; it is also about flow the other way. A significant number of UK medicines from firms like AstraZeneca go to Europe, so this is in the interests of the EU27 and the UK, which is why considerable work has been done on it.

Exports: No Deal

Richard Burden: What recent assessment the Government have made of the effect on the transportation of goods of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

Stephen Barclay: The Government have prioritised flow of goods at the border and put in place a range of easements to support that fluidity.

Richard Burden: I do not get any sense from the Secretary of State that he intends to implement the decisions of this House in ruling out no deal. What would his response be to Rod McKenzie of the Road Haulage Association, who only this week said this of his experience of Ministers in relation to what he describes as the “clear and present” threat of no deal:
“What we need is action, and we need action now. And there’s this gap between what they say they’re going to do, and what they have so far failed to deliver”?
When will we see delivery from this Government? When will the Government even meet unions representing drivers to discuss their real fears about the impact of a no-deal Brexit on drivers’ hours and safety?

Stephen Barclay: Again, the hon. Gentleman is ignoring the evidence. The Government are acting. He should look at, for example, the auto-enrolment of EORI—economic operator registration and identification—numbers. Some 87,955 VAT-registered businesses that trade only with the EU have, as part of auto-enrolment, had those numbers sent out. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was in Calais meeting his counterpart and discussing these very issues. There are material issues to address, but it does not progress debate in this House if people ignore the reality of the work that the Government are doing.

Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend said last week that the
“car industry’s ‘just in time’ supply chains rely on fluid cross-Channel trade routes”,
and that we
“need to start talks now on how we make sure this flow continues if we leave without a deal.”
Some of us have been making this point for some time. Can my right hon. Friend say: who are these proposed talks with, have they started, when does he expect them to finish and will he publish an update on how far they have got?

Stephen Barclay: This is the first opportunity I have had since my right hon. Friend left the Government to pay tribute to the work that he did as a senior Minister, in particular, if I may say so, in relation to the British steel industry. I know he was an assiduous champion of its interests at the Cabinet table.
What I was highlighting in that thread was the talks the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was having that Friday in Calais. The fact is that issues about the documentation required and the flow are of mutual interest. It was pertaining to the issues touched on in the communiqué issued by the Commission yesterday. It is in the interests of both sides, including those of leaders in northern France, that we get the flow of these goods right.

Hilary Benn: About 3 million wooden pallets are used every month to transport goods, including food, between the UK and the EU. After a no-deal Brexit, those wooden pallets will no longer be able to be used unless they have been heat treated or fumigated. Can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance, because this is absolutely about the supply of food, that there are sufficient pallets available to the companies that keep our food supplies moving?

Stephen Barclay: We have a ministerial meeting, chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which is tasked each day with looking at specific issues. My focus—as Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of this—is on the negotiations, as opposed to every item such as pallets, so I will pick that up with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. However, considerable work has gone on. As I say, this issue applies to the EU—to its exports and the flow of goods through Calais—and it is these very issues that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was discussing with his counterparts in Calais last Friday.

Jeremy Lefroy: The Secretary of State quite rightly referred to the EORI numbers, but as I understand it, businesses will also have to get a similar number from the country in the EU27 with which they trade once we are outside the EU. Are businesses aware of that, or are they just aware of getting the UK one?

Stephen Barclay: My hon. Friend is right that there are a number of things businesses need to do. That is exactly the purpose behind the public information campaign that we have launched to improve readiness. Contrary to the perception often implied in this House, a huge amount of work has been done in Government over the last three years and a large amount of work has also been done in large companies, including large pharmaceutical companies. The area of more concern has been within the SME community to which he refers, and that is what the public information campaign is targeting.

Tom Brake: Would not the best way of measuring the effect of transportation of goods on the UK leaving the EU without a deal be to publish the Operation Yellowhammer documents, rather than sanitising or shredding them, and allowing Members of Parliament to interview the civil servants responsible for writing them?

Stephen Barclay: A huge amount of information has already been published, not least in the form of the technical notices that the Government have issued. However, I fear—this may be a rare area of agreement between the right hon. Gentleman and me—that there is no level of documentation we could publish that would fully satisfy him.

Visa-free Travel

Craig Whittaker: What plans the Government have to negotiate visa-free travel between the UK and the EU for short visits after the UK leaves the EU.

Pauline Latham: What plans the Government have to negotiate visa-free travel between the UK and the EU for short visits after the UK leaves the EU.

James Duddridge: The European Union has confirmed that it will grant UK nationals visa-free travel for short stays, subject to reciprocity.  The Government have also said that we do not intend to require visas for tourists or short-term business visitors from the European Union.

Craig Whittaker: On longer-term working visas, 19% of people in the Calder Valley work in manufacturing, a sector that is now suffering from skill shortages and benefiting from very high employment. Can my right hon. Friend put the minds of businesses at rest, and explain how we can fill these skill shortfalls in the short term after Brexit that are currently filled through freedom of movement?

James Duddridge: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I can certainly reassure him. As the Home Secretary set out, as we leave the EU we will transition to a new points-based immigration system that is built around the skills and talents that people have, not where they are from. In the short term, Swiss citizens and those from the European economic area who move to the UK after a no-deal Brexit on 31 October will still be able to start to study, as now.

Pauline Latham: How will we ensure that the UK continues to attract the brightest and best when we leave the EU?

James Duddridge: My hon. Friend makes an important point—it is essential that we attract the brightest and best, not just from the EU but from around the world. That is what the Government are doing by repositioning ourselves with real growth areas around the world, alongside the EU.

Barry Sheerman: Is the ministerial team aware that my constituency of Huddersfield, where I come from, is, like that of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), the centre and heart of manufacturing in this country? We must be mobile and be able to visit places. People in the manufacturing centre of Huddersfield, and the university, are absolutely appalled by what might happen if there is a no-deal Brexit. We need access to our markets and to travel, and we believe it will be the end of the world if we crash out without a deal.

James Duddridge: If he has studied my past, the hon. Gentleman may know that I lived in his constituency. I studied and have friends in his constituency, and I know it very well.

Alison Thewliss: Last week I spoke to Universities Scotland, which is deeply concerned about the status of Erasmus students who are currently in Scotland. If they go home for Christmas, can the Minister guarantee that they will be allowed back in, in the event of a no-deal Brexit?

James Duddridge: Yes.

John Bercow: We are grateful.

No Deal

Stephen Hammond: What recent assessment he has made of the likelihood of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

Stephen Barclay: The Government are committed to leaving the European Union on 31 October, whatever the circumstances. We would prefer to leave with a deal, but to achieve that the EU must be willing to reopen the previous withdrawal agreement.

Stephen Hammond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I believe the best way to avoid no deal is to secure a deal. He will know that I voted three times for the withdrawal agreement, and I will support this Government as they seek to secure a deal. Given that the comments reported overnight from Monsieur Barnier appear to be in conflict with the aspirations of our Prime Minister, will the Secretary of State say when the Prime Minister intends to deliver his proposals for the revised deal, so that that deal can be secured before 31 October?

Stephen Barclay: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. Despite some misgivings and the way that he campaigned during the referendum, he has consistently voted for a deal, and he was consistently willing to compromise where many others were not. On the substance of the talks, the Prime Minister’s Europe adviser was in Brussels yesterday, and the Prime Minister is due to meet the Taoiseach on Monday. I am in regular contact with my counterparts, and I have visited a number of capitals in recent weeks. A significant amount of work has gone on, but we will not fall into the trap that befell the previous Government, where the Commission has an absolutist, all-weather, all-insurance position and then asks for deals on the basis of creative flexibility, and against that test then dismiss it as magical thinking. We need to have detailed discussions, but they must be done in the right way, which is what we are doing.

Matthew Pennycook: The Secretary of State has said once again that the new Administration want to secure a deal, rather than leave without one, yet we know that no new concrete proposals have been presented to the EU. It has been reported that in the technical talks that took place yesterday between the UK’s chief negotiator and EU Commission officials, the UK team made it clear that the Government want to jettison the level playing field provisions contained in the withdrawal agreement. Will the Secretary of State confirm that removing those provisions is now the Government’s preference?

Stephen Barclay: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Government want to leave with a deal. We also know that Labour Members do not want a deal, they are not prepared to leave with no deal, and therefore they are not prepared to leave at all. The Government’s proposals made it clear in the letter to President Tusk that, notwithstanding concerns about the wider withdrawal agreement held by many of my colleagues on the Government Benches, the issues have been narrowed down to that of the backstop. That is distinct from the Northern Ireland protocol as a whole, and that is the constructive approach that the Prime Minister has taken. He has also answered the charge that was often levelled from the Labour Benches about what sort of deal we seek in the political declaration. The charge of a blind Brexit was often levelled at me, and the Prime Minister has answered that question. He is seeking a best-in-class free trade agreement, and he has been crystal clear on that.

Matthew Pennycook: There was no answer there on the level playing field provisions. I am not sure why the Secretary of State is so reluctant to confirm that regulatory divergence from the EU, rather than alignment with it, is what the Government want to achieve. After all, as he mentioned, in the Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk on 19 August that was for him “the point” of our exit. We have gone from Canada plus plus plus to Canada minus minus with barely a mention and no debate in this House. Let me ask the Secretary of State this simple question: will the Government now come clean with the British public about the fact that far from maintaining workers’ rights, Ministers want the freedom to chip away at them and environmental protections and consumer standards?

Stephen Barclay: No. What is staggering about the hon. Gentleman’s question is his—

Anna Turley: Answer!

Stephen Barclay: If the hon. Lady will give me a moment, I was just coming on to do precisely that. The point at issue is whether the UK is, as a sovereign state, able to determine its own laws and regulations, or whether it is in dynamic alignment, taking rules and regulations from the Commission over which we would have no vote. Opposition Members may huff and puff. What it suggests is that they want this Parliament to continue to take rules from the Commission, but in future have no say over those rules. We do want a situation where we have two sovereign states, not on the basis of deregulation but of sovereignty.

Desmond Swayne: Am I right in trusting that we have a cunning plan to leave on 31 October?

Stephen Barclay: My right hon. Friend tempts me, with his knowledge of the relevant box sets, into dangerous territory. The Prime Minister does have clarity on what he is seeking in the negotiations. The framework was set out in the letter to President Tusk, where we narrowed down the negotiating objectives to the backstop in the withdrawal agreement and to a best-in-class free trade agreement in the political declaration. That is the plan. It is very clear.

John Bercow: Order. In calling the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Jane Dodds), I should like again to congratulate her warmly on her splendid maiden speech yesterday afternoon.

Jane Dodds: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Diolch yn fawr iawn. What would the Secretary of State say to the National Farmers Union, which says that a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic for farmers? The Farmers Union of Wales says it would have disastrous consequences for farmers. What would he say sitting opposite family farmers in places like Brecon and Radnorshire and across Wales who really fear for the livelihoods and their futures?

Stephen Barclay: May I join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming the hon. Lady and paying tribute to her maiden speech yesterday? I thought she spoke with great distinction. The specific issues pertaining to the  sheep industry were addressed, at much greater length than perhaps the Chair can allow me now, in the Adjournment debate by the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), so I would first refer the hon. Lady to the comments and the issues the Minister of State—

Jenny Chapman: So, no answer!

Stephen Barclay: I can go into it. I watched the Adjournment debate. The Minister talked about the misunderstanding by an Opposition Member of the impact of depreciation on experts. We can talk about the measures put in place in terms of headage and the support for the industry. We can talk about the level of exports. We can get into the detail with the hon. Lady; it is just that the Chair will, I am sure, want me to be fairly succinct, and the Adjournment debate covered the issue at greater length.

Ethanol Imports: Tariff Schedule

Anna Turley: What plans the Government have to publish a tariff schedule for ethanol imports in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

Stephen Barclay: If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the UK would implement a temporary tariff regime. This would apply for up to 12 months while a full consultation takes place and a review of a permanent approach is undertaken.

Anna Turley: I appreciate the Secretary of State’s response and the letter I received from the Department for International Trade this morning, but in the meetings we had with the Department we were told that biofuels would not be covered by the protection tariffs. Ensus in my constituency tells me that the fear of a no-deal Brexit is already harming business. We know that a no-deal Brexit without tariff protection will kill British biofuels, end jobs and leave us relying on imports. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with his colleagues to maintain tariff protection on ethanol before it is too late?

Stephen Barclay: The hon. Lady raises a legitimate issue in a constructive way, and I am very happy to work with her because she is championing a genuine issue on behalf of her constituents. There is always a balance in setting tariffs between protecting consumers and the issues for producers. It is about how we calibrate those two sometimes competing issues. She will understand that within the market— within the industry—there is domestic pressure, regardless of Brexit, but I am very happy to work with her on that issue.

Stephen Crabb: The Secretary of State will be aware from Yellowhammer that the proposed tariff regime under a no deal creates very specific risks for the UK oil-refining sector. Given that the Valero refinery in Pembroke is the largest and most important private sector employer in west Wales,  will the Minister tell me what the plan is for protecting the UK refining sector if we end up leaving the EU without a deal?

Stephen Barclay: My right hon. Friend will know that concerns have been raised by the industry in respect of that. Pertaining to the answer that I gave a moment ago, existing questions within that market are also a factor. I am very happy to have further discussions with him, as I am with the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), because a number of issues come into play for that industry.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: There is a group of medicines that simply cannot be stockpiled and which rely on an uninterrupted supply of imports. Will the Secretary of State give a 100% guarantee that none of my constituents will suffer a shortage of that type of medicine as a result of a no-deal Brexit?

Stephen Barclay: As I said, we have not only put in place an additional procurement framework in terms of capacity, but we have procured an express freight service to deliver small consignments on a 24-hour basis, and a two-to-four day pallet-delivery service. These issues are being addressed by the Department and a huge amount of work is going on exactly on that issue.

Business Preparedness

Andrew Lewer: What recent discussions he has had with business groups to help ensure that they are prepared to leave the EU on 31 October 2019.

James Duddridge: Since joining the Department on 27 July, I have personally met more than 20 business organisations. Since July 2016, Department for Exiting the European Union Ministers have collectively undertaken over 700 meetings with businesses and business organisations from every sector in the economy.

Andrew Lewer: Northamptonshire is one of the most important logistics hubs in the UK, so what steps are the Department taking to make sure that those firms and businesses are up and ready to deal with a possible no-deal Brexit?

James Duddridge: That is a very sensible question. The Department has engaged extensively with logistics companies and representative bodies from across the sector to ensure that they are prepared for 31 October. I encourage my hon. Friend and businesses to consult the public information campaign on gov.uk to get a practical, step-by-step guide on what is required for business. That is a powerful thing to do—it is the right thing to do—in preparing to leave properly on 31 October.

Thangam Debbonaire: What information can the Minister give us about what preparation has been done—what proactive contact his Department has made—with businesses that may not trade directly with Europe but whose supply chains or customers do so, and who therefore may not have availed themselves of the Government web pages?

James Duddridge: I would certainly encourage those businesses to avail themselves of that opportunity. The Department has sent out 1,300 bits of information and that is captured on the gov.uk website. I have engaged with businesses—I am the small and medium-sized enterprises champion for the Department—and the one thing that I have noticed is that larger businesses tend to be more prepared than smaller businesses, and particularly the type of which the hon. Lady speaks. The Government website is a rich source of information, so I encourage Members to return to their constituency and—alongside campaigning—promote the Government website.

Gregory Campbell: There is a massive difference between some of the realistic concerns of businesses about no deal and some of the madcap scare stories that are going around. What is the Minister doing to ensure that there is an understanding of realistic concerns and to dismiss some of the other wild stories?

James Duddridge: There will always be knockabout politics, but I would prefer to engage in the detail. I was in Northern Ireland last Thursday talking to businesses on the border and then in Belfast discussing alternative arrangements with a wide range of businesses, engaging them in the very real detail and not the high-level scare stories. There are concerns and they are being dealt with, but they should not be confused with the bigger scare stories.

Discussions with EU Counterparts

Philip Dunne: What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts over the summer recess on the UK’s departure from the EU.

Stephen Barclay: Over the summer recess I had extensive discussions with my European counterparts—I suspect that my right hon. Friend and I saw a little less of the summer than some—including in the past fortnight in Paris, Copenhagen, Helsinki and a couple of other places. There has been extensive engagement, and that engagement continues.

Philip Dunne: I am very encouraged to hear my right hon. Friend begin to list some of his summer itinerary. I think that helps to build confidence in the fact that the Government are engaged in serious discussions with the European Commission and other counterparts. To that effect, would he be prepared to publish information on whom he has met and the discussions he has had when not in meetings, with whom and when?

John Bercow: Order. I would just say that I am sure that the unknown place to which the Secretary of State has referred has not forgotten that he visited it and its inhabitants.

Stephen Barclay: I fear that I might get into trouble with the said unknown place, but I hope that a bit of latitude will be granted. My right hon. Friend raises a material point, because it goes to the crux of last night’s debate and the sincerity of the negotiations. The Prime Minister has also had extensive contact through the G7 and his visits to Berlin and Paris, among other places,  and there has been the extensive work, to which I pay huge tribute, of the Prime Minister’s Europe adviser, who was in Brussels last week, this week and who has also travelled extensively. Significant work has been going on, and I am very happy to look at what further detail we can set out.

Jenny Chapman: If all that is true, why did Dominic Cummings call the negotiations a “sham”?

Stephen Barclay: First, as the hon. Lady well knows, the Government do not comment on leaks. Secondly, the issue is really about looking at the substance. Look at the letter to President Tusk that narrowed down the issues. It would have been much easier for the Prime Minister to set out a long list of demands but, because of the seriousness of the negotiations, those have been narrowed down, as set out in that letter. One of the European Union’s charges against the previous Government was that they had not been specific enough about what sort of future relationship they sought in the political declaration. The letter answered that very clearly: a “best in class” FTA, and one that covers not only the economic side, but security and other aspects. There is substance there. The problem with the other side is that they do not want to leave at all, and therefore they will not take yes for an answer.

Policing and Security

Adrian Bailey: What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on the effect on policing and security of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

Jack Dromey: What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on the effect on policing and security of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

James Duddridge: I spoke this week to the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister about security matters and exiting the European Union. My Department’s Ministers and officials hold regular meetings with the Home Office, and we are working closely to prepare for business, keeping our plans under rigorous review, and I will continue to do so.

Adrian Bailey: Under a no-deal Brexit, UK police would lose access to 40 enforcement tools, including the European arrest warrant and access to European information databases, which are vital for identifying international terrorists and criminals who could be targeting this country. Can the Minister explain how that is assisting us to take back control of our borders?

James Duddridge: One thing that will certainly assist is the 20,000 extra police officers—[Interruption.] I do want to get down to the specifics, but the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for making a political point, given that we are now into an election—at least, we think that we are into an election. On the specific details, Interpol notices function very similarly to SIS alerts. The hon. Gentleman reasonably talks about the European arrest warrant. In the event that we leave without a deal, the  UK will operate the Council of Europe convention on extradition with EU member states. We have worked intensively with operational partners, both here and across the EU, to ensure that there is a smooth transition between the two.

Jack Dromey: Operation Yellowhammer found that a no-deal Brexit could lead to
“a rise in public disorder and community tensions”.
Do the Government not recognise that the toxic and irresponsible use of language, such as “collaborators”, “treachery” and “surrender”, deepens the divisions in our country and puts the public at risk, including Members of this House? Have they not learnt the tragic lessons of history?

James Duddridge: Let me gently say to the hon. Gentleman that one thing that will lead to unrest and unhappiness is the ignoring of the public and the referendum result. However, we continue to work with the police and the Army in the normal way.

Legal Services Sector

Bob Neill: What steps his Department is taking with the Department for International Trade to promote the UK legal services sector overseas.

James Duddridge: Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend, who does not seem to be in the Chamber—[Hon. Members: “He is in the Chamber.”] I apologise. That was in no way an insult to my hon. Friend’s height or presence. I congratulate him on his work in the Justice Committee.
The Government are committed to maintaining, over time, the growth in the United Kingdom’s £4.4 billion trade surplus in legal services, and that includes setting the right framework in future trade negotiations.

Bob Neill: There is always more than one way to be overlooked.
Does the Minister accept that, at present, the United Kingdom has the second largest market in legal services in the world, and the largest in the European Union? That is because of the unparalleled access that British lawyers currently have to EU legal markets under the appropriate directives. Does the Minister recognise that if we are to avoid the 10% hit that the Law Society estimates would be taken by this country’s income from its legal services in the event of a no-deal Brexit, we must not only preserve maximum access to those markets, but develop a comprehensive strategy across all Departments to market British legal services as a world centre of excellence elsewhere?

James Duddridge: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Given that 6.5% of global legal services pass through the United Kingdom and three out of 15 top firms are based internationally in the UK, it is essential for us to work on a cross-departmental basis. The Legal Services are GREAT campaign is a good example of this ambitious programme. Since its launch in Singapore in October 2017, it has operated in more than 30 countries, with trade missions to Kazakhstan, China, Chile and Nigeria. Those missions are very effective, and they will continue.

Freedom of Movement

Ellie Reeves: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effect on the rights of (a) EU and (b) UK citizens of immediately ending freedom of movement in the event that UK leaves the EU on 31 October 2019.

James Duddridge: The European Union has confirmed that it will grant UK nationals visa-free travel to the Schengen area for short stays of up to 90 days in any 180-day period, even in a no-deal scenario. In the event of no deal, however, the arrangements for UK nationals travelling to European Union countries will change, and we have published advice on gov.uk on the steps that they will need to take.

Ellie Reeves: Many EU nationals in my constituency have endured incredible stress and anxiety owing to the uncertainty that they have faced since the referendum. Their rights have been used as a bargaining chip with the EU, and the new Home Secretary even proposed legislation to stop freedom of movement immediately after no deal. Will the Minister assure us that citizens’ rights will no longer be used as a negotiating tool, and will be unilaterally guaranteed?

James Duddridge: Citizens’ rights will not be used as a negotiating tool., and they have not been used as a negotiating tool. The hon. Lady has mischaracterised the position. It is the Prime Minister who has made a big bold offer to EU citizens, and it is now for member states to reciprocate.

Ruth George: What assessment have the Government made of the impact on people with pre-existing health conditions who will no longer be able to use their European health insurance cards to cover their conditions if they either live in the EU or are travelling?

James Duddridge: That will depend on decisions and arrangements with individual countries. The UK has made a big bold offer to EU nationals in this country, and I encourage those countries to reciprocate.

Paul Blomfield: I welcome the Minister to his post. As he will know, over the summer recess a Home Office advertisement relating to settled status was banned for being misleading. The uncertainty created by conflicting messages is causing real fear among EU citizens in the UK and the British in Europe.
On 21 August, I wrote to the Secretary of State seeking clarity on five key issues. I have not received a reply, so I wonder whether the Minister can answer one of those questions now. I am reassured by his indication that he likes to engage in detail. EU citizens were promised that if the UK left the EU without a deal, their rights would be the same as they would be under the withdrawal agreement. Can the Minister confirm that, despite previous indications to the contrary, the Government will retain the right to appeal against settled-status decisions in the event of a no-deal Brexit?

James Duddridge: The settled status scheme is working very well: more than 1 million of the 3 million people have applied, nobody has been rejected, and people may apply all the way up to 31 December 2020.

Contingency Planning

Gavin Newlands: What progress his Department has made on contingency planning for the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

Stephen Barclay: The Government are delivering more than 300 specific no-deal projects across a range of sectors and delivery is well advanced. There is still more work to do and we are turbo-charging our preparation under the leadership of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Gavin Newlands: We have heard so much nonsense this morning—in fact over the last three years—that it was not really a surprise to hear the Secretary of State talk about a “depreciation of experts” in the Government. Last night this House voted for legislation to block a no-deal Brexit; does he accept the vote of this House and will his Government strictly adhere to the rule of law when this Bill has Royal Assent?

Stephen Barclay: It is a little dismissive for the hon. Gentleman to say that all this is nonsense. That was the first SNP question, so saying that we have already heard the nonsense seems a tad premature. The reality is that the Government are preparing extensively for no deal. We have a big information campaign that has launched, over 300 projects are under way, and we are working actively and constructively with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government.

Peter Bone: If the Bill that passed through this House yesterday becomes an Act of Parliament, it would govern what we do in this country, but of course we cannot guarantee a no deal, because the European Union might not agree to an extension. So will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will continue to prepare for no deal despite any Act of Parliament, because what happens is not within our control?

Stephen Barclay: My hon. Friend is a keen observer of these matters, and he is absolutely correct: the decision on an extension is not a—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) says “So what”; I am merely stating the legal position. I am sorry that she finds the legal position somewhat distasteful, but that is the legal position. The legal position on an extension is that it requires the support of every member state including the United Kingdom, so my hon. Friend is correct. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady keeps chuntering, but my hon. Friend is correct: we would need to continue to prepare for no deal, because it is within the scope of any member state to block an extension. That is the legal position.

Patrick Grady: 

Stephen Barclay: Not just this Government will pay attention; I am sure the people of Scotland will pay attention to a vote against democracy. It is not the first time that those on the SNP Benches have ignored the votes of the British people, whether in the referendum in 2014 that they want to overturn or in the referendum of the United Kingdom in 2016. They seem to have a problem with listening to the democratic will of the people.

Martin Vickers: In my discussions with Associated British Ports, which manages the port of Immingham and the other Humber ports, there is a clear indication that they are well prepared in their contingency plans to handle any problems that may occur. Can the Secretary of State confirm that our ports are indeed well prepared for no deal and also that they can take much heart from the advantages, such as free-port status, that will be available post-Brexit?

Stephen Barclay: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Before the reshuffle I met the ABP and others looking at these issues, and their preparations are well advanced. He will also know that the Government have allocated additional funding for those ports, and he will be aware that, although in this place a huge amount of the debate tends to focus on Dover because of the vehicle flow through it, in terms of the containers and value of goods, the other ports are actually more significant.

Peter Grant: The Yellowhammer report that the Government are determined to hide from us warns of delays of up to two and a half days at ports, freight target capacity being reduced by between 40% and 60% and, in terms, medical supplies being vulnerable to severe extended delays. The Government tried to pretend that that was an old report, but that was not true. It is dated August 2019. They also tried to pretend that it represented the very worst case scenario, but that is not true either. It is a reasonable worst case scenario: not the most likely, but likely enough to need to be planned for. When will the Government accept that all the trade organisations, professional bodies and people who understand the industry who are saying that no deal will be a disaster are right, and that it is this Government who are wrong?

Stephen Barclay: There is an oddity within the hon. Gentleman’s question. He accuses us of hiding the Yellowhammer documentation, yet it is shared with the Scottish Government as part of our internal working to prepare for no deal. We are not hiding it; in Government we prepare documents and on that basis we put in place funding and other measures to tackle them. In fact, the Public Accounts Committee, among others, would be the first to criticise us if that detailed preparation was not taking place.

Peter Grant: Will the Government give absolutely unreserved and unrestricted permission to the Governments of Scotland and Wales to publish that report in full today: yes or no?

Stephen Barclay: It is always the case that in Government we prepare documents in order to ensure that we have preparations in place. The point is to determine what is likely to be the impact on the EU27, for example, and what we can put in place to address concerns such as those on the flow of goods. I referred earlier to the fact that two thirds of Ireland’s medicines come through Britain. I could also have mentioned the fact that 40% of Irish exports go through Dover. This is an issue that concerns the Commission and the United Kingdom. That is why we are preparing these documents, and we are working openly with the Scottish Government and others on that. That is what the Government should be doing.

EU Settlement Scheme

Alan Brown: What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on the level of uptake for the EU settlement scheme.

James Duddridge: I spoke to the Home Secretary this week on the issues of the EU settlement scheme. The scheme is operating well: 1 million people have passed through the scheme out of the 3 million, and there have been no rejected applications. The Prime Minister has made a big, bold offer to EU citizens, who remain our friends and neighbours and who are welcome here in the United Kingdom.

Alan Brown: The Minister says that the system is working well, but I can tell him that the reality is that it is not. My wife Cyndi is an EU citizen and, due to the Government rhetoric, she reluctantly decided to apply for settled status. I can tell the Minister that the system crashed, and that the officials operating it said that they could not handle the volume of traffic. Is it because this process is a shambles that the Government have had to do a U-turn on the threat to end freedom of movement on 31 October, or is it the threat of court action that has caused the U-turn?

James Duddridge: We have improved the system on an ongoing basis, and we are keen to do so. The default position is that we want people to get that settled status. The hon. Gentleman makes specific points about a specific case, and I am sure that the Home Office would be happy to look at that and to understand how it can improve the system further.

Topical Questions

Louise Haigh: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Stephen Barclay: Since I last updated the House, I have had the pleasure of welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) to his ministerial place. I should like to take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) and for Braintree (James Cleverly), who have now both joined me in the Cabinet. We have a new Prime Minister, who is committed to leaving on 31 October, and within the  ministerial portfolios I welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who has taken on responsibility for domestic operational planning in the context of no deal. This enables me and my Department to focus on negotiations with the EU, in which we will seek to achieve a best-in-class free trade agreement. Throughout the summer I have visited a number of European capitals and had regular conversations with my key interlocutors, including the Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland and the French Europe Minister, with whom I had recent productive meetings in Paris.

Louise Haigh: If I was still a serving police officer and I arrested a European national who, unbeknown to me, was wanted for a string of serious violent sexual offences, at the moment I would simply have to access a database on booking him into custody in order to find that out. Will the Secretary of State spell out in detail how I or my custody sergeant would do that if we were to leave without a deal on 31 October?

Stephen Barclay: Under the current position, that would depend upon to which member state the situation pertained. We already have in place a bilateral arrangement with Ireland to reflect the common travel area, but the arrangements vary between member states. However, the premise of the hon. Lady’s question is right, because the UK puts more data into the European arrest warrant system than any other member state, and we think that the UK’s contribution is of value to the European Union and that it is not in its interest to put its citizens at risk by not reciprocating. We stand ready to work with member states, but it is the European Commission and my counterpart Michel Barnier who have ruled out what he calls “mini-deals” to address the hon. Lady’s concerns.

Trudy Harrison: When we leave the EU, with or without a deal, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the provision of medicines into the UK will remain uninterrupted?

Stephen Barclay: As was covered earlier in the question session, a huge amount of work has been done by the Department of Health and Social Care, including on additional procurement capacity and express delivery. That builds on extensive work by the industry, including the additional stock and additional flow capacity that it has procured.

Keir Starmer: I want to ask specifically about the important issue of Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government remain fully committed to all the existing elements of the December 2017 joint report between the UK and the EU negotiators? Yes or no?

Stephen Barclay: Our commitments were set out in the letter to President Tusk. It contains our commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which includes putting no infrastructure at the border to impede north-south flow.

Keir Starmer: I asked a careful question, and I got a careful answer, which did not confirm full commitment, so let me press on. It has been reported this week that EU member states were told by the European Commission that the UK Government were proposing to reduce the  ambitions of the 2017 joint report relating to Northern Ireland—not the Good Friday agreement, but the 2017 joint report. In particular, it has been reported that the UK is rowing back from the “legally operable” solutions to avoiding a hard border to what has been described as “aspirational” measures—that is quite specific. The pledge now is only to have trade across the Irish border that is “as frictionless as possible”—again, a difference. These are important issues, and I know that there has been a bit of knockabout this morning, but this is of huge importance across Ireland. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to reject those reports and make it clear that there will be no rowing back from the solemn commitments made two years ago in the 2017 joint report?

Stephen Barclay: First, as I said in my previous answer, there has been no rowing back from the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which is an area of common accord between us. Secondly, the reason I pointed towards north-south co-operation is that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be well aware, the Prime Minister drew a distinction in the letter to President Tusk between the backstop and the Northern Ireland protocol. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also know that, while the two terms are often used interchangeably in the Chamber, there is a distinction between them, particularly on the basis that the north-south co-operation, the common travel area and the benefits of the single electricity market are distinct from the points in terms of alignment.
As for his further question around the legally operative text, I addressed that point to some extent in my remarks in the Chamber yesterday in that there is a distinction between the European Commission saying that all aspects need to be set out in a legally operative text by 31 October and looking at, for example, what role the joint committee will have during the implementation period, because the implementation period means that things need to be in place by the end of December 2020 or, if extended by mutual agreement, for one or two further years. It is therefore within that that there is a distinction to be drawn.

Peter Bone: Does the Secretary of State think there should be a general election before the next European Council meeting so that the British people can decide whether they want the Leader of the Opposition as Prime Minister, who will keep us in the European Union, or whether they want to return our excellent current Prime Minister, who will take us out by 31 October?

Stephen Barclay: Yes, we need to know who, at the 17 October council, can negotiate for the British people and, in particular, who can deliver on the express will set out in the referendum. What we have from Labour Members is doublespeak that will leave us in legislative purgatory, because they are saying, on the one hand, that they will vote against every deal that is put forward—three times they voted against the deal, and their own deal was rejected by the House as well—yet they also vote against a no deal.
Well, the inevitable consequence is that they are not prepared to leave, even though their own manifesto said they are. The real question for the British public at the next election will be, how can they trust what Labour says in its manifesto on Brexit when it has gone back on every word it said at the last general election?

Rachael Maskell: Further to the question of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), we are now halfway through the time period set by the German Chancellor to produce alternatives to the backstop. In light of the Government’s decision to prorogue Parliament, perhaps from next Monday, will the Secretary of State ensure that their proposals come to this House so that they can be scrutinised by this House, including the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union?

Stephen Barclay: I think the Chair of the Select Committee would concede that, of the holders of my role—I know there has been more than one—I have probably been the most frequent in appearing before his Committee and others. Actually, that is not the case when compared with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), but it is when compared with my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), who is now Foreign Secretary.
On the substance of the question, there has been a huge amount of work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) asked about the different working groups, for example, and I chair the technical working group. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union chairs the business group, and he was in Northern Ireland with that group over the summer.
Again, it goes to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow. Work has been going on throughout the summer on alternative arrangements, but if it is simply published against an all-weather, all-insurance test, it will be dismissed, as it was under the last Government, as magical thinking. That is what the last Government experienced. We need to get into the detail, and that work is going on, but it needs to be discussed in the appropriate way.

Stephen Hammond: Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether, since 25 July, the Department has had any discussions with the financial sector about the implications of any revised policy, which would be a policy of regulatory divergence?

Stephen Barclay: My hon. Friend raises a specific issue and, as a former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I know the markets take a keen interest in such discussions. If I may, I will ask the Chancellor or the Economic Secretary to come back to him on this specific issue.

Rosena Allin-Khan: Thousands of Tooting residents have signed my local petition against this Government’s dangerous Brexit plans. Like me, Tooting wants to remain. The Brexit Secretary voted against legislation to block a disastrous no deal. Tooting is absolutely furious. Why is he trying to drive this country blindly off the Brexit cliff?

Stephen Barclay: I think the hon. Lady would agree that there is more than one voice in Tooting. I am sure there will be a range of voices, as indeed there is, but I do not resile from the fact that I am sure she speaks for a majority in her constituency in making that point.
My approach is that when this Parliament says it will give the British people their say, when the Government of the day write to the British people saying they will honour the result and when this House then votes by a significant margin to trigger article 50 to deliver on that result, it undermines our democracy if Members of this House, on the one hand, vote against a deal and then, on the other hand, say they will not countenance a no deal. I think that is a threat to our democracy, and I think it is a threat to our international reputation as a country that defends democracy around the world.

Neil O'Brien: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to protect farmers and manufacturers in the hopefully unlikely event of a no-deal Brexit?

James Duddridge: I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has confirmed that it will support farmers in the same cash terms as they have been supported under the current scheme. We are working with farmers to look at new markets and, across Government, we continue to work with businesses, both large and small. We are particularly encouraging small businesses to engage with the Government in their preparation for the eventuality of no deal.

Martin Docherty: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his grand tour of Europe in recent weeks during the recess, notably to Finland, a nation of 5 million people and an enthusiastic member of the European Union. Given that the UK was only the seventh largest importer to Finland in 2018, how will leaving the single market and the customs union improve that dismal position?

Stephen Barclay: On the one hand, colleagues question whether we are engaging and on the other hand, the hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that we are engaging too much. He needs to make up his mind.
On how we promote further trade, first, there are opportunities beyond Europe that we are keen to seize, and we have a Secretary of State for International Trade. [Interruption.] On Finland, about which the hon. Gentleman is chuntering, I chaired a breakfast meeting with business leaders when I was in Helsinki and we looked at, for example, links on key areas such as timber where there is an appetite to strengthen bilateral trade further. There was a huge appetite among the business leaders I spoke to there to do more trade with the United Kingdom, including with Scotland as part of that United Kingdom.

HS2

David Lidington: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government’s review of HS2.

Grant Shapps: This is my first time at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Transport and I welcome the opportunity to update the House on HS2.
There is no future in obscuring the cost benefits or timetable of HS2, so on 21 August I announced an independent cross-party review, led by Douglas Oakervee, of whether and how HS2 should or should not proceed. The review will consider the project’s affordability, deliverability, benefits, scope and phasing, including its relationship with Northern Powerhouse Rail. The chair will be supported by a deputy chair, Lord Berkeley, and a panel of experts from business, academia and transport to ensure that its assessment programme is independent, thorough and objective. Some of the individuals on the panel have been passionate advocates and others have been vocal critics of the project, but they will provide input to and be consulted on the report’s conclusions.
The review is under way and will report to me on time this autumn. I will discuss its findings with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and its recommendations will help to inform our decisions on the next step or otherwise for this project.
Colleagues will be aware that on our first day back, 3 September, I placed in the House advice that I received over the summer from the recently appointed chairman of HS2 Ltd, Allan Cook, on the cost and deliverability of the current scheme. He has said that he does not believe that the current scheme can be delivered within the budget of £55.7 billion, set at 2015 prices. He estimates that it requires a total budget, including contingency, in the range of £72 billion to £78 billion, again set at 2015 prices. The chairman does not believe that the current schedule of 2026 will be met for the initial services of phase 1. He does not think that that is realistic.
In line with lessons from other large major transport infrastructure projects, the chairman’s advice proposes a range of start dates rather than a specific one. He recommends 2028-31 for phase 1, starting with initial services between London Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street, followed by services to and from London Euston later. He expects phase 2b—the full high-speed line to Manchester and Leeds—to be open between 2035 and 2040.
The chairman is also of the view that the benefits of the current scheme are substantially undervalued. All those matters will now be considered by Douglas Oakervee within the scope of Oakervee review.
When I announced the independent review into HS2, I said that I want Doug Oakervee and his panel to assess independently the findings and other available existing evidence. The review will provide recommendations on whether and how we proceed.
I wish to make one further, wider point. Everyone in the House knows that we must invest in modern infrastructure to ensure the future prosperity of our nation. However, it is right that we subject every single project  to the most rigorous scrutiny possible. If we are truly to maximise every opportunity, this must always be done with an open mind and a clean sheet of paper.

David Lidington: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his new responsibilities and welcome the review that the Government have set up.
I have three questions for my right hon. Friend. First, in view of this week’s revelation that HS2 is overrunning both its budget and its schedule—something that many of us have been predicting for a long time but that has been systematically denied for years by HS2 Ltd and by his Department—what assurance can my right hon. Friend give about the transparency of both the review that has been commissioned and the Government’s formal response to it?
Secondly, my right hon. Friend will know that enabling works for HS2 are still being carried out along phase 1 of the route. Ancient woodlands are being felled. Productive farmland is being occupied and used by HS2 Ltd. Public money is being spent on these works even though, as my right hon. Friend says, the review may lead to a recommendation to cancel or significantly change the project altogether. Will the Secretary of State now accept that those works are prejudicial to the outcome of the review that he has established and order that they cease?
Thirdly, I have a queue of constituents whose land has been taken by HS2 Ltd for preparatory works, but who have still to receive the payments that were formally agreed with HS2 Ltd. The Government have rightly committed to crack down on late payment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that HS2 Ltd should be setting an example in this regard, not acting as a laggard? As he, as Secretary of State, is the sole shareholder in HS2 Ltd, will he now take responsibility for insisting that HS2 Ltd puts this injustice right immediately?

Grant Shapps: First, on the budget and the schedule, it is exactly as I said in my opening statement: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no future in trying to obscure costs or in being unclear. It is the case that in a massive, developing infrastructure project—Europe’s biggest—costs just are not known. They are speculated about and then start to firm up, in this case, literally as we start to dig into the ground. I can see how over a period of time things move. None the less, I take the view that as soon as I have the information, I will inform the House—as soon as I got that Cook report and the House returned, I stuck it straight into the Library. I assure my right hon. Friend that I will continue to do exactly that going forward.
Secondly, it might be helpful to colleagues to know that I have asked for Douglas Oakervee to meet Members of Parliament. He will be in Committee Room 2A on Monday 9 September, between 3.30 pm and 5 pm. That is an opportunity for any colleagues to go and see him. Colleagues can make their own arrangements with him separately, and I will inform the House of that.
Thirdly, on the enabling works, we are in a position where I have to make a go/no-go decision in December. I know that this will not a delight my right hon. Friend, but it seemed to me that if we did not continue to make preparatory works, I would not even be in the position to make a go/no-go decision. I am sorry to disappoint my right hon. Friend, but that is the current position. We can then take a decision.
I share my right hon. Friend’s concern and anxiety about compulsory purchase order payments. When people’s lives, livelihoods and homes are potentially going to be ripped apart by a project that is supposedly for the wider good, it is right that the state compensates them promptly and efficiently. I would be most grateful to see more details of the cases he mentioned. I have already had one across my desk, which I have sorted out, and I would like to see others. There is no excuse for a CPO for which people are not paid.

Andy McDonald: I too congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment and welcome him to his place. He comes into post at a time of crisis for the country, but at an absolutely critical moment for HS2.
I gently remind the Secretary of State that we did ask for regular reports and recommended a peer review when phase 2a was before the House some weeks ago. I am sorry that he was not able to vote for that—or, indeed, that the Prime Minister was not able to express a view at all.
The Secretary of State mentioned that the review that is under way is a cross-party one, but I gently point out that there has been no consultation whatever with me. If it is to be genuinely cross-party, perhaps he might want to take up that invitation.
We have consistently been told by the Secretary of State’s predecessor and the then ministerial team that the 2015 figure of £55.7 billion for the entire project was the full cost of HS2 and that there was no reason to change it. It is hard to conclude anything other than that it has been plain and obvious for some considerable time that this was not accurate. Will the Transport Secretary tell us when his predecessor was told that the figure of £55.7 billion was not accurate or sustainable, and when he was first told that the timetable for delivery could not be adhered to?
Is this not yet more evidence that this Government have totally failed to exercise any control over the project—not just over costs, but with regard to redundancy payments and key appointments that transpired to be unsustainable? In addition, when the contracts for phase 1 were being granted, despite hedge fund managers making a packet out of the inevitable demise of Carillion, this Tory Government crashed on regardless, awarding the doomed organisation a valuable HS2 contract.
It is beyond doubt that the Government have been totally incompetent and reckless, but, worse than that, there hangs over this Government the unpleasant smell that Parliament may have been misled—however unwittingly—given that it is stark staringly obvious that when the Minister responsible for HS2 stood at the Dispatch Box a matter of weeks ago to tell the House that there was only one figure and one figure alone for HS2 that assertion was completely and totally inaccurate. If there is going to be delay, what assurances can the Secretary of State give to the 9,000 people currently employed by HS2?
This Government continue to be characterised by a lack of transparency. I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks that he intends to put that right, but it still remains, as does a lack of candour. Once we can be assured that there is no prospect of the Government  reneging on the legislation to avoid a no-deal Brexit, Labour relishes the prospect of a general election to turf them out.

Grant Shapps: On regular reports, I will come back to the House as many times as it is prepared to hear about this matter, and I will continue to update Members in every possible way. It might be helpful if I were to make the introduction—if the hon. Gentleman has not already had it—to Doug Oakervee; perhaps I could organise for the hon. Gentleman to meet him separately. Of course, there are cross-party members on the review panel and it is genuinely full of sceptics. I think people were surprised when we launched a review of this project that had such a broad, cross-party view.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that prices have changed over time. I seem to recall that this was originally a project by the previous Labour Government, and that when it was conceived the whole thing was going to cost about £13 billion. One of the issues that we have, which is a wider issue than just HS2, is that these things start off being fixed at a price of a particular period of time—the figure of £55.7 billion was about 2015 prices—and that does not actually allow for inflation. We therefore end up quoting prices that are just out of date. On that basis, every project will always be said to have overrun on cost, although of course the benefits probably improve as well. We have to find better ways of doing all this.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the first time that I received advice on this matter was Allan Cook’s final report on 1 August, and that is the report that I published. Finally, I undertake to ensure that we return to the House with every update that we have, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to be involved in the Oakervee review.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: As colleagues will be aware, there is pressure on time today, because there are several further pieces of business to follow, but equally and understandably there is intense interest in this monumental mess and I know that the Secretary of State is very keen, to his credit, to answer questions, so I shall do my best, as always, to accommodate the understandable interest of colleagues.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: Mr Speaker, I was just about to say that there are Members affected by this project who do not have a voice, and I was going to include you, but clearly that is not the case. Of course, there is also my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who has always joined me in the fight against HS2.
In welcoming the Secretary of State to his position, may I also welcome my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington)? It is so good to hear his voice raised in this Chamber against this dreadful project, and I endorse everything he said. It applies to my constituency as well.
The Secretary of State also needs to look at the national rail travel survey, on which one of the raisons d’être for this project is based, but which has not been updated since 2010. In answers to me, the Department  does not appear to know how much it would cost to update it. That, coupled with the fact that we are still not allowed to see the passenger forecasting documentation, means that transparency is far from the watchword of HS2. Pages right the way through the chairman’s stocktake have been redacted. Transparency is not the order of the day.
The Secretary of State should grasp with both hands this opportunity to review the project entirely and review the nationwide transport and communication policy. I urge him to take a deep breath and carry out a comprehensive assessment across car, bus, train and air, as well as new technologies such as 5G and broadband, because it is essential that we look at the technological advances before we let this project go any further.
As the carriages being built for Crossrail pile up in Worksop because we cannot get that project right, let us draw a deep breath, cancel this project, start again and get a decent comprehensive transport policy.

Grant Shapps: I know that Douglas Oakervee will have been listening to my right hon. Friend’s words with great interest and will no doubt take into account the national rail travel survey information. She will of course meet him as well. I will just reflect on her final point—because of course Douglas Oakervee is looking at all this—about all forms of travel across the country. I entirely agree with her. Having ordered it two years ago, I recently got an electric car. It finally arrived a couple of weeks ago. It is clear that transport is changing in this country and that we have to take a more holistic view of it. Rail is one part, but there is much else to consider.

Alan Brown: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. He must be so thankful to have inherited another failing Grayling legacy.
We know that the increased costs and delays have been covered up since 2016 and denied at the Dispatch Box, so, while I welcome the review, should there not be an inquiry into this hiding of key information from the House? While I welcome the review, I find it strange that about a third of the document that sets out its terms has been redacted. Can he explain why?
What changes will be made to the cost-benefit criteria, and why? While the Secretary of State said that many of the benefits of the scheme were previously underestimated, I would remind him that the business case rested on the assumption that time business people spent travelling by train should be treated as downtime, meaning that shorter train journeys were treated as increasing productive time, when clearly that is not the case now that we have wi-fi on the go. Will he confirm that that aspect of the business case will not be over-egged?
The current proposals also mean that journeys north of Crewe to Scotland will be slower than the existing Virgin service. Will the review look at that and perhaps a different type of rolling stock? If it does, what will that mean for the existing rolling stock and ongoing procurement? What further reviews and cost-benefit analyses will be done of track design that could mean slower high-speed trains but reduced costs? What is the contractual status of the recent contract awards to First Trenitalia, given that the Government might now be doing a full stock decision? What would that mean for that contract? What is the committed spend, to date, in  the Barnett allocations to Scotland, and what will happen going forward? We were promised at the Dispatch Box that on day one of the high-speed trains operating they would go all the way to Scotland, and that is now not the case. Will the Secretary of State answer those questions and, if not, please put his responses in writing?

Grant Shapps: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I write to him on some of that, rather than detain the House on all of it. He is absolutely right about the Allan Cook report. I should have mentioned that in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). I am unhappy about having any of that report redacted. I have read the rest of it. It is not hugely exciting. I pushed back on that with the Department, and apparently it is just that the lawyers are saying that it is commercially confidential stuff that I cannot force to be released. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be much better if we could read every single page, but that is the law. [Interruption.] I do not disagree—it is just that lawyers will not allow it to happen.
On downtime when travelling, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Lots of people work very productively when travelling. It is my favourite time to work uninterrupted. I can assure him that Doug Oakervee will look at that. Allan Cook referred to some of the build benefits where there could be new industry, homes and so on in an area where a line runs.
The last point I will comment on—I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the rest—is the implications for the west coast partnership. That is very important. Under the contract, I think in 2026—it would be in line with if HS2 went ahead—the company would become a shadow operator, so it is built into that contract if the thing goes ahead.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. There is a further urgent question after this and there are then three ministerial statements before we get to the Backbench business. Therefore, there is a premium upon brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike. For the avoidance of doubt, what I am looking for from colleagues is not dilation and not preamble but single-sentence questions, which will be brilliantly exemplified, I feel sure, by the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin).

Patrick McLoughlin: Thank you for that challenge, Mr Speaker. May I first welcome my right hon. Friend to his position?
The easiest thing for the Government to do is to cancel this project. That would be easy to do, but it would be the wrong thing to do, for this reason: I would find it ironical that, as we leave the European Union, I can get a high-speed train to Paris or to Brussels but not to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or Sheffield. My right hon. Friend talks about the overspend, but we seem to be able to accommodate at the drop of a hat the overspend on the Crossrail project, which is overrunning. That is a London project that is incredibly important for London, but we do not take a similar view of a project that has been long thought out and is absolutely essential for the major cities outside London.

Grant Shapps: I am not short of advice on what to do on HS2, but few pieces of advice come from somebody as distinguished as a former Transport Secretary. I have heard what he has had to say, as I know Doug Oakervee will have done, and I look forward to taking it into account.

Lilian Greenwood: I welcome the Secretary of State to his place.
The Secretary of State must understand the huge disappointment in the east midlands that HS2 phase 2b —which will, as the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) said, transform connectivity between Birmingham and the economies of the midlands, Yorkshire, the north-east and Scotland—is now facing a delay of up to seven years, or even cancellation. That is particularly the case when the Chancellor failed to even mention the midlands rail hub in his spending review, and when the Secretary of State’s predecessor not only repeatedly assured us that HS2 would happen but cancelled the electrification of the midland main line. I know that the Oakervee review is due to report, but the disappointment will turn to deep anger if the Secretary of State does not ensure that the midlands receives the investment in its transport that it needs.

Grant Shapps: I thank the hon. Lady; it is a pleasure to have a question from the Chair of the Transport Committee. The one thing I can assure her of is that there will be £48 billion of other unrelated rail investment over the next few years, so both the midlands and the northern powerhouse rail side of things will certainly have huge—massive—investment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Reiterating my plea for brevity, I hopefully call Sir William Cash.

Bill Cash: Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. Secondly, I entirely endorse the views of my right hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) and for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). The reality is that this whole project is completely out of control. The costs have gone up repeatedly. I voted against it. There is a petition in the House of Lords, which my constituents were absolutely right to pursue. This whole project is a complete white elephant and should be cancelled.

Grant Shapps: As I say, I am not short of advice on this, and Doug Oakervee will definitely have heard my hon. Friend’s words.

Barry Sheerman: I will try to be brief, Mr Speaker. I have always been against this. I was reviled by Ministers when I said that the cost would end up at £100 billion. I wanted the investment in a network across the north of England in preference to this. Will the Secretary of State assure me that we will learn the lessons? This is a great sector that we do wonderful things in. We built the Olympics on time, and it was magnificent. I understand that there  are 12 gagging orders for senior former employees of HS2 Ltd. Can they give evidence to this inquiry, and can we ensure that we learn the lessons? We are good in this sector, so why has this gone wrong?

Grant Shapps: Even with the Olympics, the cost changed over a period. The hon. Gentleman will know that big projects require management, and the process is designed to ensure that this is properly grasped. I agree with him—we need to deliver that transport infrastructure across the north. I am surprised that no Member has mentioned it yet, but these two questions are not entirely unrelated, so we must get it right for the north and for all our country.

Jeremy Wright: I am not sure it is the entirely appropriate expression to congratulate my right hon. Friend on inheriting responsibility for HS2, but I wholeheartedly congratulate him on becoming the Secretary of State. In agreeing entirely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) said, may I press the Secretary State on the point he made about enabling works? As he knows, there is more than one kind of enabling work currently under way. Some of the enabling work is the destruction of ancient woodland sites. There are seven of them in my constituency, along with a very old and much valued pear tree in the village of Cubbington. Given that he has announced an all-options review, including the possibility that this project will be cancelled or significantly revised, surely it is possible and sensible to categorise those types of enabling work that will do irreversible damage and postpone them until the review has concluded. He has already announced a substantial delay in this project. Surely a delay of a few weeks more would be sensible, to ensure that we do not do irreversible damage.

Grant Shapps: As I said before, to have a proper go/no-go decision, we need to continue to allow enabling works. However, I can ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who is handling these major projects, to meet my right hon. and learned Friend to discuss that specific concern.

Dennis Skinner: Unlike Derbyshire Dales, HS2 goes through many villages in the Bolsover and north-east Derbyshire area. The result is that there are a lot of people in those villages—more than 100—affected by HS2. I want to know as soon as possible just exactly what is going to happen to this £100 billion project. It goes through Derbyshire on two separate lines. Not only does it go past Sheffield; it also stops at a Sheffield station, so there is a slow track and a fast track in Derbyshire. The idea that HS2 is based upon getting to London 30 minutes sooner is a joke and, for that reason, the Secretary of State should start over again.

Grant Shapps: I know that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is affected in a big way. I refer to what I said before. This project affects a lot of people’s lives, with demolitions and the rest of it in his patch. He asked me to do this as soon as possible. I have Douglas Oakervee on an unbelievable timetable, supported by a fantastic group of people, to get this done and reported back this autumn. The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait before the end of the year.

Maggie Throup: Long Eaton, Sandiacre and Stanton Gate are grossly affected by the eastern arm of HS2 but, as the Chair of the Transport Committee  has already indicated, it brings advantages as well—jobs and growth as well as the pain. I will say two things. One is that any delay causes further stress and uncertainty not just for residents, but for businesses. They will be blighted for ever more, even if my right hon. Friend takes the easier way out and cancels the eastern arm. My plea to him is: do not cancel that eastern arm. I will not allow the east midlands and Erewash to be the poor relations yet again.

Grant Shapps: I think every exchange indicates that, while everyone is able to welcome a review, when we get to the announcement of that review on the other side the House will not be quite so united, but I absolutely hear my hon. Friend’s comments.

Liam Byrne: Inflation aside, this multi-billion increase in cost betrays nothing other than sheer incompetence in the management of this project. In the west midlands, 100,000 jobs are now in jeopardy; hundreds of millions of pounds of new rates are now in jeopardy; and the future prospects of the younger generation are now in jeopardy. I want to know from the Secretary of State what compensation has been sought by the Mayor of the West Midlands, because my understanding is that he has asked for precisely nothing?

Grant Shapps: We have a range of different people on the Doug Oakervee board, including Andy Street, and we are making sure that all the representations go into it. As I say, I do not want to rush to prejudge this. We do know certain things. We know from the Allan Cook report about the range of £72 billion to £78 billion. I do not have confidence in the data I have been provided with to know yet whether the benefits have outstripped or under-stripped these various different costs. I just start with a blank sheet of paper. I just want the data: give me the facts and then we will be in a much better position to decide, including for people throughout the west midlands.

Victoria Prentis: I am sure I was as pleased as you were, Mr Speaker, to hear about the review undertaken by the new Secretary of State. Can he reassure me that, as part of the new cost-benefit analysis, the review will take into account that many people work very hard while on trains, as I am about to do as I return to my constituency on a high-speed train run by Chiltern Rail?

Grant Shapps: Absolutely. Travelling on a train can be a fantastic way to chomp through constituency work or anything else that people are doing on business or for pleasure. It is one of the most civilised ways to work—when we have our trains running on time, which is another related priority.

Yvette Cooper: Will the Government widen this review not just to their complete lack of grip on the HS2 project, but to the continued failure of the Department to remember that there are towns as well as cities in this country? It is continually locking billions of pounds into ever-delayed, ever-escalating projects for cities, while towns such as Castleford and Pontefract have inadequate trains—overcrowded, old Pacer trains, with no disabled access  to our trains—and, once again, we are just expected to accept a trickle-down of benefits many decades into the future. It is not good enough. When will we actually get a fair deal for our towns?

Grant Shapps: As the representative of two towns—one, Welwyn Garden, calls itself a city, but it is actually a town—I absolutely agree with the idea that towns have a significant part to play in the economic and social life of our country. One good piece of news: those Pacers are finally going by the end of this year.[Official Report, 9 September 2019, Vol. 664, c. 5MC.]

Julian Lewis: At what level of exorbitant expenditure will the Government finally decide to pull the plug?

Grant Shapps: As I say, it is not just a question of the expenditure. As I mentioned before, it is also what the benefits are. May I ask my right hon. Friend just to be patient enough so that the data is covered on both sides of that, and we can come to a rational and sensible decision?

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Colleagues should now follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) with single- sentence questions. If they do not—let us be absolutely clear—they are stopping other colleagues taking part. It is as simple as that.

Wera Hobhouse: Will the Secretary of State commit to look at any new major transport infrastructure projects in line with the 2050 net zero carbon target that this House has set itself?

Grant Shapps: Yes.

Martin Vickers: There is a north-south divide when it comes to transport spending. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will consider the benefits to the northern economy when he reaches his decision?

Grant Shapps: Absolutely.

Rupa Huq: What is the status of the review if we go to the polls this autumn? My constituents see this as a pre-election bribe for the Government’s voters in the shires.

Grant Shapps: This project is too serious to be thinking in those terms, and I certainly was not when I asked Douglas Oakervee to carry out this review. As I have now said twice, this is about people’s lives and livelihoods, and the ability of this country’s economy to function. Regardless of what happens when we finally get that election call, I hope there will be cross-party consensus to continue this important work on a cross-party basis and get the job done.

Huw Merriman: Will the Secretary of State look at the cost envelope by taking into account enhancements that benefit those on the route, inflation and incompetence?

Grant Shapps: As the terms of reference, which I encourage right hon. and hon. Members to read, make clear, this review is wide ranging and takes all such matters into account.

Clive Betts: Given the delays to the southern section of the route, will the Secretary of State ask the review to consider the possibility of starting the northern sections before the southern section is finished, so that there is a degree of working overlap?

Grant Shapps: That is one of the things that Douglas Oakervee is looking at. Interestingly, Allan Cook’s report, which is in the Library, suggests doing phases 1 and 2a together.

Craig Whittaker: I agree with my right hon. Friend that spiralling costs must be challenged and held to account, but this project is vital for the northern routes, which are already overstretched. Will he assure me that this review is not just a smokescreen to cancel the project, which many of our current Executive do not like?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend’s question reminds me of a clip that I made on the day of announcing this full, thorough and open review. When the camera was switched off they said, “What do you really think?” What I really think is that we should have a full, thorough and open review.

Paul Blomfield: Business leaders in Sheffield are deeply concerned about this review. Does the Secretary of State recognise that, whatever else he is considering, cancellation would damage the northern economy?

Grant Shapps: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, whatever happens, the northern economy and northern powerhouse rail is set to steam ahead.

Jeremy Lefroy: Will the review take into account the potential negative effects of the business case on the existing and vital west coast main line?

Grant Shapps: Yes it will, and I ask my hon. Friend to meet Douglas Oakervee to make those points, because every element of this is being taken into account.

John Cryer: Are there not many abandoned former railway lines across the country for which, for the first time in a long time, there is now extensive demand? Those could be reopened for a fraction of the cost of HS2.

Grant Shapps: With huge respect to him, I curse Beeching every day in this job and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mark Pawsey: What will be the effect of a delay or cancellation of HS2 on the west coast main line, which is of concern to my constituents in Rugby?

Grant Shapps: I do not think there is any direct ramification. We have just re-let the west coast partnership contract, so the answer to my hon. Friend is, none.

Jeff Smith: HS2 is vital for the economy of Manchester and the north. As the chairman’s stocktake says:
“HS2 is not a standalone railway but rather an integral part of ambitious regional growth plans,”
and it is already attracting investment. Will the Secretary of State assure us that those wider benefits will fully be taken into account in this review?

Grant Shapps: I can. I have met the Mayor of Manchester and Mayors across the north, and I am due to meet them again shortly. Those things absolutely will be taken into account.

Philip Hollobone: I voted against HS2 every time. Would the money be better spent on improvements to our existing conventional rail network?

Grant Shapps: The answer is that I do not know, but I like to think that £48 billion on improving and upgrading our existing networks is a good down payment.

Ronnie Cowan: The Under-Secretary of State for Transport assured me that the full stretch of HS2 will go up to Scotland. Is that the case, and when?

Grant Shapps: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are currently struggling with stages 1, 2a and 2b, but the overall plan was always to go further.

Owen Paterson: Will the Secretary of State commit to investing in the costs of places with collateral damage, such as villages such as Woore in my constituency that will suffer grievously during the construction process? Will he also commit to look at the value of spending £100 billion, which this project is cantering towards, on full-fibre broadband for every household?

Grant Shapps: We must have full-fibre broadband in every household, and that is a commitment of this Government regardless. My right hon. Friend describes devastation to villages, and I agree that we must find a better way of doing this. We must look after people properly when great national projects drive through their homes.

David Hanson: Significant UK and Welsh Government money, linked to HS2 at Crewe, is going into growth deals in north Wales. What opportunities are there for the Welsh Government to formally feed into the review?

Grant Shapps: There are enormous opportunities. If not on Monday, at the time I mentioned at the Dispatch Box earlier, then separately I am very happy to hook up the right hon. Gentleman, and any of his colleagues, with Doug Oakervee.

Bob Seely: HS2 will be the most expensive railway ever built by mankind. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a very significant  opportunity cost and therefore to get bang for our buck we should be investing in significant regional infrastructure projects?

Grant Shapps: That is very effective lobbying. My hon. Friend has already secured a great achievement with regards to the railway on his own Island. He proves that we can do both things simultaneously if we need to.

Diana R. Johnson: The key rail investment in the north has to be a high-speed link between Liverpool in the west and Hull in the east. Is it not right that any additional resources should be put into that, rather than HS2?

Grant Shapps: I would extend that further to Sheffield, Hull, Newcastle and other cities in the north. We can do both things and we will do both things: both upgrading the national rail infrastructure and—the Prime Minister mentioned this in his first speech, which he made in Manchester, so I think it would be a bit churlish not to recognise it—linking northern cities.

David Drew: The problem with HS2 is that the benefits are not shared around the country. The west, in particular, gains nothing. Will the Secretary of State look at how we could put the money into electrification and rebuilding the Severn tunnel?

Grant Shapps: I do not know in what form this will or will not take place, but I do know that the jobs, skills and supply chain affect the entire nation. There is almost not a constituency in the country that would not benefit in some way. As with any big national infrastructure project, we need to ensure that the benefits of that work and supply chain are spread across the nation.

Laura Smith: Given that the entire review will be completed in a matter of weeks, can the Secretary of State really have confidence   that it will have thoroughly considered the impacts that scrapping or changing phases 2a and 2b would have on Crewe and Nantwich, as a significant centre of economic activity for the wider region?

Grant Shapps: Yes, I think I can reassure the hon. Lady that, although the review is reporting very quickly—within weeks, as she says—the experience on the panel adds up to years. I have not added it up, but it is possibly hundreds of years of rail experience. I think they will really take that into account. Again, I invite and welcome her to speak to Douglas Oakervee to make sure 2a and 2b are fully represented in her terms.

Carol Monaghan: Can the Secretary of State give us a date for when we can expect HS2 to be extended to Scotland? If not, are the people of Scotland expected to sit and watch £100 billion being spent on this project when it literally pulls up short?

Grant Shapps: I do not want to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I cannot give her a date on the initial phases, let alone on that extension. I do think there is a very good point here about linking up our Union. I am pleased to see the nationalist side so onside with that project.

Paul Sweeney: The Secretary of State mentions the extension to Scotland. However, journey times between Glasgow and Manchester will increase as a result of HS2. Will he ask the review to consider expediting an extension north to Glasgow from Manchester as a matter of urgency?

Grant Shapps: Again, I think this comes into the wider picture. The £48 billion of rail investment over five years means that we should be able to do lots of different things at the same time—and indeed, we are. I think that is part of the wider infrastructure project for improvements on rail throughout the country.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Tony Lloyd: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will respond to the urgent question of which I have given prior notice?

Julian Smith: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive work over the summer on a range of issues, including those relating to Harland and Wolff. Secondly, may I remind Members that I have been held captive in the Whips Office for over three years and that this is therefore my first Dispatch Box appearance? I have to be honest and say that I am very grateful not to be the Government’s current Chief Whip.
As is my duty under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2019, I will publish a report on or before 9 October to update on progress. Throughout the period ahead, I will be doing everything I can to support and encourage talks to succeed. Democratically elected politicians in Northern Ireland are best placed to take the decisions needed to support hospitals, schools and the police. I have seen the excellent work of civil servants in Northern Ireland over the last few weeks, but of course they cannot take the proactive decisions that are needed on public services or the economy in the run-up to 31 October. If we cannot secure the restoration of an Executive, we will pursue the decision-making powers that are needed at the earliest opportunity.

Tony Lloyd: I welcome the Secretary of State to his role and his appearance at the Dispatch Box. He will know that Northern Ireland is in a unique position in the United Kingdom: it has no devolved Government, nor does the Secretary of State or any member of the UK Government have powers to deliver the kind of transformation that is needed. I know from my conversations with senior members of the Northern Ireland civil service that they are frustrated by their inability to make the decisions—whether on health, education or the issues that we now face—that Northern Ireland so desperately needs.
In that context, we face the Prorogation of Parliament and the possibility—I accept it is a possibility—of a no-deal Brexit and a general election coming fast down the track. The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 will expire some time in October, and I have a number of specific questions that I need to put to the Secretary of State about the good governance of Northern Ireland.
The first examines the question of Prorogation. We know that we face the possibility of Prorogation next week and that that provides enormous challenges in terms of governance. Yes, if we can see Stormont back in operation, that will achieve what we need, but does the Secretary of State accept that there are real dangers during a period of Prorogation, in terms of the governance of Northern Ireland? Will he tell the House precisely when he was consulted about Prorogation? What advice did he give to the Prime Minister and other members of the Government?
Turning to a no-deal Brexit, the now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), told the House before  the summer that in the circumstances that it “voted for no deal”, or in any case, if there were no deal, “we”—the Government—
“would have to start formal engagement with the Irish Government about…providing strengthened decision making in the event of that outcome. That would include the real possibility of imposing a form of direct rule.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 391.]
The Foreign Secretary told the “Today” programme that direct rule would require legislation and made it quite clear that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would need to follow that up. Does the Secretary of State accept that some form of direct governance—of direct accountability—would be necessary in the event of a no-deal Brexit? Can he tell us what steps he is taking?
Finally, in any part of the United Kingdom we expect the security of our people to be paramount. There will be some real questions about making sure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has the resources that it needs. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how he intends to make sure that the allocation of those resources ensures that the PSNI has the resource base and numbers that it needs? If this were your constituency, Mr Speaker, or Rochdale, Skipton and Ripon, Wales or Scotland, this situation would not be allowed to happen. I hope that the Secretary of State shares my view that this cannot be allowed to frustrate and put Northern Ireland in a position of discomfort, or worse.

Julian Smith: The hon. Gentleman asks about dangers. I think I have been very honest with the House that powers are needed to ensure, not only in the current situation, where civil servants across Northern Ireland are making difficult decisions without political direction, but obviously in the run-up either to a deal or no deal, that the very tricky decisions can be made, and I am sure that those will have to be made at pace.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the legal advice on Prorogation. It was not something that I or my Department was involved in. That was a matter for the Attorney General. As Parliament is aware, the Cabinet was updated shortly before the decision was announced.
On what happens if the talks do not succeed in time, again, I have been clear that we need to have powers at the earliest opportunity because some of the challenges that will emerge will do so fairly soon, but we have to operate in the environment governed by the Good Friday agreement. On that point, certainly in the discussions that I am having with the Irish Foreign Secretary on the talks, the relationship is very positive.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the PSNI. As he will be aware, the PSNI has gained about £20 million of additional funding. However, when we look at how we direct funding and make those decisions, we see that, in order to ensure that a large and important part of our country is not left ungoverned at a difficult time, we do need powers to be in place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. In the name of expediting business, I appeal for extreme brevity.

Simon Hoare: I echo entirely the concerns of the shadow Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend’s commitment to Northern Ireland is not in  question, but the impression coming out of some sections of Government is that Northern Ireland could easily now be collateral damage, so may I ask him a specific question? He referred to the Attorney General’s legal advice on Prorogation, which he will have seen. Did it make specific reference to the unique and pressing needs of Northern Ireland, and how they might be attenuated as the Prime Minister set out his strategy, and if not, why not?

Julian Smith: It would obviously be inappropriate for me to discuss the details of that legal advice in the House, but suffice it to say that I have indicated that, in order to preserve the rights of citizens in Northern Ireland, we need to get Stormont up and running again or, failing that, ensure that powers are in place to protect those rights, jobs and the economy and the commitments made by the Irish and UK Governments on the Good Friday agreement.

Gavin Newlands: The impact of no deal on the devolved nations has been well documented, with Northern Ireland at particular risk owing to the border. Reports that the Government are trying to row back from their 2017 joint report commitments are deeply concerning. Do the UK Government not see that this particular game of brinkmanship that the Prime Minister is playing could have catastrophic consequences for the people on Northern Ireland, and will the Secretary of State now commit to ensuring that no deal is taken off the table? Such moments press home more clearly than ever the need for Northern Ireland to have a functioning legislature, so what progress has been made over the summer to ensure that Stormont is reconvened at the earliest opportunity?
Finally, the Prime Minister said that he had not decided to prorogue Parliament, but we have now learned from evidence in Scotland’s Court of Session that, in reality, he had already signed off on Prorogation in his red box. Can the Secretary of State tell us why there is such a disconnect between the Prime Minister’s words and his actions?

Julian Smith: On the question of deal versus no deal, my job is to lead the efforts for Northern Ireland to prepare for no deal, but I could not be clearer in my mind that a deal is in the best interests of Northern Ireland. As for the talks, we have issued the report outlining what occurred over the summer. These have been at a differing pace throughout the summer. There have been good talks. The issues are important, but not insolvable. I again pay tribute to Simon Coveney and officials for the work that has been done over the summer to get us to a point where we are not far from the finishing line, if the parties want to push forward.

Karen Bradley: I join the shadow Secretary of State in expressing concern about the impact that Prorogation may have on the people of Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I welcome him to his new post and wish him every success—ensure that during Prorogation the Government will not stop working for those who need redress, and by that I mean the victims of historical institutional sexual abuse and those who were severely physically or psychologically disabled during the troubles  through no fault of their own? They need redress and they need it urgently. Can he assure me that he will deliver that?

Julian Smith: May I first pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who did an exceptional job as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. She will know of the trauma that victims have suffered. It is now three years since the Hart report was published, and the work that she did means that the Bill could now be presented at the earliest opportunity. I hope that we will get that into the Queen’s Speech and ensure that we solve the issue once and for all.

David Hanson: In the absence of a Stormont Government, and in view of the potential difficulties arising from no deal, will the Secretary of State clarify who will make decisions during that period, and tell us what discussions he has had both with the political parties and the Irish Government about the implications of direct rule?

Julian Smith: I strongly believe that getting the talks up and running, and getting Stormont up and running, is in the best interests of Northern Ireland, and is the best route for decision making. Obviously, along with Cabinet colleagues, I am considering alternatives should that fail, but we have to try to get Stormont up and running.

David Lidington: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his responsibilities. Does he agree that it would be frankly unconscionable for any Government to lead us into a no-deal Brexit in which the Northern Ireland civil service lacked the legal powers and authority to cope with those circumstances? Does this not point to the need for legislation to be introduced and enacted before the end of October?

Julian Smith: I think it is vital that, first and foremost, we get the talks up and running. If that does not work, we must establish powers to ensure that we are making all the decisions in the best possible way for the citizens of Northern Ireland.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to their posts. We look forward to working with them in the days and weeks ahead.
Let me reiterate our commitment to getting Stormont up and running as quickly as possible, although I welcome the concentration on the need for direct decision-making powers to be taken in the event that that is not possible. As the shadow Secretary of State said, it is extremely important that Northern Ireland is not left, uniquely, in the terrible position of having no one in charge during these critical days.
Does the Secretary of State welcome the publication of remarks made by the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic yesterday, in which he indicated that in the event of no deal there would no checks or infrastructure on the border? We should build on that, because there is room for progress towards securing a deal, which we all want.

Julian Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Thankfully, the EU negotiations are not my responsibility, but I do think that a deal is in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

John Bercow: A single sentence, I think. Owen Paterson.

Owen Paterson: Everyone in the House supports the Belfast agreement, and everyone in the House would like to see the institutions up and running again, but we cannot bludgeon one party into co-operating, and in the meantime outcomes are deteriorating for our fellow citizens. The Bengoa report was published in October 2016. While he is looking at this, will the Secretary of State also consider what powers he could take to benefit every citizen in Northern Ireland?

Julian Smith: I know from visiting hospitals and schools that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. For too long, public servants have been having to make decisions that should have been made by politicians. I must be frank with the House. The powers that I have—the powers that are available for decision making—are extremely limited, and that is why it is a priority for us to get Stormont up and running.

John Bercow: Lady Hermon: a single sentence, I think.

Sylvia Hermon: Of course, Mr Speaker. [Hon. Members: “That’s it!”]
The Secretary of State—whom I warmly congratulate on his appointment, while also thanking his predecessor—will know from the very angry and concerned representations that I have already made to his office that I am extremely worried and annoyed that a statutory instrument which governs key appointments to a range of bodies in Northern Ireland—including appointments of QCs—has been put in jeopardy by Prorogation. I need a commitment, a guarantee, from the Secretary of State today that that statutory instrument will be debated in the House on Monday, or on Tuesday, but certainly before the prorogation. It affects people’s lives in Northern Ireland, and the Secretary of State has a responsibility to protect those lives.

Julian Smith: I hope to table a motion for the statutory instrument early next week.

David Gauke: It is clear from what my right hon. Friend is saying that if we have a no-deal Brexit and Stormont is not up and running, in order to protect the rights of Northern Ireland we need to take powers; in order to take powers we need to legislate; and in order to legislate the House needs to be sitting. Is it not also clear that if the House does not pass that legislation by the end of October because it has been prorogued or dissolved, the rights of the people of Northern Ireland will be detrimentally affected?

Julian Smith: Again, the priority has to be getting Stormont up and running. I have been honest and open to the House about the need for powers, and clearly my right hon. Friend is right that at the very heart of the need for those powers are the rights of citizens in Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Is the Secretary of State sickened already by people talking up the dangers—almost cheerleading and willing on the problems instead of helping to find solutions? When will the  Secretary of State be able to bring forward a report or a Bill on institutional historical abuse cases, which was promised before the recess?

Julian Smith: I hope we will be introducing that in the coming weeks.

Julian Lewis: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there are no circumstances, including a no-deal Brexit, under which the British Government would erect a hard border on the island of Ireland?

Julian Smith: We are fully committed to no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

Jim Shannon: In the Sunday papers at the weekend there were indications that dissident republicans are contacting experienced bomb makers in the IRA to make a spectacular big bomb. What is being done to prevent dissident republicans from making contact with the bomb makers, to ensure that those bombs never happen in Northern Ireland or anywhere in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Julian Smith: The PSNI and the security services have done an exceptional job over the summer. I pay tribute to them and their families, because people are trying to kill them—that is on the increase and certainly was over the summer. I have decided to convene a weekly security meeting that includes the PSNI to make sure that in the coming weeks and months I am apprised on a regular basis and meeting those people who are leading these teams putting their lives on the line.

Henry Bellingham: In congratulating the new Secretary of State, may I ask him what he plans to do about stopping the relentless hounding of Army and police veterans in respect of alleged historical crimes when most of the evidence has disappeared? What is he going to do about it?

Julian Smith: As my hon. Friend will have seen from the report we laid yesterday and from the comments the Prime Minister has made, there has been a new cross-Government effort to ensure that we look at this issue. I know that he has raised this issue many times in this House, and I hope he welcomes the fact that the Government accept that the current situation is not working and that we need to relook at and revisit this area. I and a number of my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet are doing so and look forward to reporting to the House in due course.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I remind colleagues that a single-sentence question is imperative.

Wes Streeting: Given the unique challenges that Prorogation or Dissolution present to the Northern Ireland Office, why was the Secretary of State not consulted by the Prime Minister or Dominic Cummings before the Prorogation plan was agreed?

Julian Smith: The Cabinet was updated immediately before the decision; the hon. Gentleman will have to ask others about the first part of his question.

Nigel Mills: The Northern Ireland civil service was clear that a decision to extend the welfare mitigation package was needed this autumn or else it would have to start taking alternative measures to advise Northern Ireland recipients of them on what action they should take. Has the Secretary of State got a plan to extend the welfare mitigations in the near future?

Julian Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in Northern Ireland last week. I continue to work with her and she is actively involved in looking at the issue of welfare not only in Great Britain but across Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the actions of the Labour party yesterday in forcing through the pro-EU anti-democratic surrender Bill will make it more difficult for the Government to reach an agreement with the EU and therefore produce a situation in which direct rule is likely? Will he give an assurance that he will not shy away from the decision that should, quite frankly, have been made a long time ago?

Julian Smith: We have to focus on getting a deal for Northern Ireland. That is my priority in supporting the Prime Minister, and that is his priority. Let us get Stormont up and running. That will solve many of the issues that we are concerned about today.

John Bercow: My apologies to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). If I had seen him earlier, I would have called him earlier, but it is a pleasure to call him now.

James Brokenshire: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. It is a privilege to serve in office and I wish him all success with his role. He highlighted in his written statement yesterday the need to intensify negotiations with the parties. That is the way to avoid legislation being needed. Perhaps he could set out what form he expects that to take.

Julian Smith: As I mentioned earlier, we have been having good discussions over the summer. I met the Irish Foreign Minister last Friday and we will be meeting again this Friday. I hope to push forward, with him, on working with the parties to get into a position where we have the best possible opportunity to get Stormont up and running.

Ruth Jones: We heard from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) yesterday about the Prime Minister’s failure, to date, to meet the Taoiseach, so what engagement on Prorogation has there been with the Irish Government in their capacity as co-guarantors under the Good Friday agreement?

Julian Smith: I meet the Irish Foreign Minister regularly, but I have not discussed the issue of Prorogation.

Maria Caulfield: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. I am pleased to see that he is committed to legislation for victims of institutional abuse being in the Queen’s Speech. Can he commit to that legislation coming to this place before the end of year?

Julian Smith: Yes, I can.

Diana R. Johnson: If we prorogue and then move to Dissolution and Stormont is still not sitting, what will happen to the provisions of the Northern Irish Bill that repeal sections 58 and59  of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 after 22 October?

Julian Smith: Those provisions remain.

Craig Whittaker: Just this week, Northern Ireland has received over £400 million extra in the spending review. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Northern Ireland will get far better value for that money in all areas of spending by having the Assembly up and running?

Julian Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the £400 million, but we need a political decision making body, the Executive, to ensure that it is directed in the best interests of Northern Ireland citizens.

Martin Docherty: The Secretary of State’s former boss instigated a review into the Home Office forcing British identity on those who identify as Irish, such as Emma de Souza back in February. Can the Secretary of State advise the House whether his new boss has binned that review? If not, why not, and when will he publish it?

Julian Smith: It is vital that this House continues to respect the dual citizenship components that the hon. Gentleman talks about and ensures that they are preserved. The review is taking place, and I have made strong representations. The Government are fully committed to the Good Friday agreement obligations.

Alan Brown: The Prime Minister says that a hard border can be avoided by the use of existing technology, so can the Secretary of State explain what technology can check passports, visas and customs arrangements for goods without so much as a camera at the border?

Julian Smith: The Government are fully committed, as are the Irish Government, to the common travel area in all deal and no-deal scenarios.

Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

John Bercow: As the hon. Gentleman’s point of order appertains to the matters of which we have just treated, I will take it if it is brief.

Tony Lloyd: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State was very candid in his admission that he was not consulted about Prorogation. Important decisions have to be made about Northern Ireland’s governance  over this period. Can we have a clear statement, perhaps from the Prime Minister, that there will be time, either before Prorogation or at a convenient time for this House, to give the Secretary of State the power to do the things that Northern Ireland needs?

John Bercow: Does the Secretary of State wish to respond?

Julian Smith: indicated dissent.

John Bercow: He does not wish to respond. Okay. The point of order has been heard. It is not a matter for adjudication by the Chair, but I want to say to the Secretary of State that the concern that has been expressed on this matter on both sides of the House, including by a number of former Northern Ireland Secretaries, will have registered very firmly with the right hon. Gentleman, and more must be heard about this matter ere long. We need to be absolutely crystal clear on that point. Nothing can get in the way of the provision of proper information to the House on this matter, as the Chair of the Select Committee and many others have emphasised. No one should think that that can be averted. It cannot be, and it will not be.

Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Several Members have taken to naming a senior public official of civil service rank from time to time—not only during this urgent question, but in debates. Perhaps you can correct me, but I was under the impression that to name a public servant in that way is out of order, wrong and should be avoided. Is that the case? What are the rules regarding naming and trying to shame public officials in this way?

John Bercow: Courteous reference is the guiding principle. The notion that no public servant can be referred to is not correct. It is an interesting concept on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but there is no track record on that matter.
We come now to the statement by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in respect of which there is, again, a premium upon brevity.

BUILDING SAFETY

Robert Jenrick: With permission, I wish to take this early opportunity as Secretary of State to update the House on the Government’s progress on building safety and to set out this Administration’s approach. Two years on from the Grenfell tragedy, it remains our priority to ensure that we have a building safety system that people can trust. In taking on this role, I have been mindful of my responsibility to the bereaved and the survivors of that tragedy. We must support them to recover and rebuild their lives. I am pleased that we will have the continued support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) as Minister for Grenfell victims. I am determined to play my part in their pursuit of answers and justice and to ensure that all residents of high-rise blocks of flats are safe, and feel safe, now and in the future. My predecessors have tackled that work with commitment and integrity but, having reviewed such matters since my appointment, it is clear to me that we must go further and at pace if we are to secure the system of building safety that we all want, so I will update the House on the immediate action that I intend to take.
First, I am consulting on changes to fire safety regulations for new-build blocks of flats. We will seek to commit to requiring sprinkler systems as standard in a wider range of new flats. I am minded to reduce the height at which sprinklers are required down to 18 metres, but I am open to hearing evidence for other relevant thresholds and will be led by that evidence, wherever it takes us. We will also consult on requiring better signs and evacuation alert systems to support effective firefighting. I am grateful to the National Fire Chiefs Council and the London Fire Brigade for their valuable and continuing contributions. I have also published a summary of responses to our call for evidence on a full review of the technical requirements in approved document B. There will likely be additional changes in due course. When taking such decisions, we will always be led by the evidence and residents’ safety. I will keep the industry and Parliament informed.
Secondly, with respect to the “Building a Safer Future” consultation, I intend to respond by the end of the year and to legislate at the earliest opportunity. I believe that we should establish a new building safety regulator to oversee the new regulatory regime for buildings. However, it is clear that we need to act now, so we are working with the Health and Safety Executive to use its experience to set up the regulator in shadow form prior to new legislation, and I want to see that happen as soon as practicable. We will take decisions on the regulator’s long-term functions and structure during autumn. Again, I will update the House accordingly.
Thirdly, although the answer to the concerns of residents is the establishment through legislation of the new safety case regime, with the individual assessment of buildings envisaged by Dame Judith Hackitt, it is clear that we should not wait until then to act.
The Home Secretary and I have worked with the National Fire Chiefs Council and intend to establish a new protection board, which will provide expert and  consistent inspections across the country to ensure we are identifying, managing and properly recording risks. This will significantly increase the pace of inspection activity across high-rise residential and other high-risk buildings to make sure building owners are acting on the very latest safety advice.
I expect all high-rise buildings to have been inspected or assured by the time the new building safety regime is in place, or no later than 2021. Residents of these buildings should be swiftly informed of the results of those assessments and inspections, with any changes acted upon as soon as possible.
Improved inspection activity for non-ACM high-rise buildings will be informed by local authorities’ current data collection work. Today, to support that work, I am pleased to confirm that we are providing them with £4 million of additional funding. I can also confirm that my Department will provide £10 million a year of additional funding to help local authorities improve their inspection capabilities and to support the work of the protection board, which we are now launching.
Should the protection board consider it necessary, I will, of course, consider providing additional resources during the remainder of this financial year to increase the pace of inspection and assurance work. I hope this systematic inspection programme will provide reassurance to residents across the country, many of whom I understand have legitimate concerns.
Finally, on our ongoing work to support the remediation of dangerous ACM cladding on buildings, where it poses a clear risk, the Government made funding available in May for its removal from eligible buildings in the private residential sector, in addition to funds already available for the social sector, bringing the total to £600 million.
As of 12 September, eligible private sector building owners will now be able formally to submit their applications for funding for ACM removal and replacement. They have until the end of December to apply. There is no excuse for building owners to delay. My Department has been encouraging swift applications, and we now have a direct relationship with a named individual in the United Kingdom for each relevant building. Where we receive applications, we will do everything we can to turn them around rapidly, prioritising and considering responses on a rolling basis.
Let me be clear: inaction will have consequences. I will name and shame individuals and businesses if I see inaction during the autumn. If we reach the end of autumn and building owners have not responded, and do not have exceptional reasons for it, I will take whatever steps and sanctions are necessary. I will support local authorities to take robust enforcement action against reluctant building owners, and I have asked the joint inspection team to provide them with all necessary advice.
Failure to act, particularly now that the funding is provided by the taxpayer, would be frankly disgraceful, and I know colleagues in this House will share that determination. Where Members have ACM-clad buildings in their constituency, we will provide guidance on how they can encourage building owners to apply. My Department stands ready to advise on the contact we have had already.
With regard to non-ACM cladding, the research programme began in April 2019 and scheduled testing has now concluded. Findings will be published in the  autumn. Following the full report, the expert panel will consider whether further testing should be commissioned or existing advice supplemented. The panel anticipates that it will publish any such additional advice by the end of this year. In the interim, building owners should continue to follow the very clear steps set out in advice note 14 to ensure the safety of their buildings and residents.
The safety of people in their home must be paramount. I hope the House will welcome the measures I have laid out today to ensure that no one should feel unsafe in their home and to build a safety system that people across this country can trust.
I commend this statement to the House.

John Healey: I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement. I have to say that I admire his air of calm. This is a Government of chaos—even the Prime Minister’s brother has walked out of office this morning—so his presence is welcome. I recognise his good intent to make good on the failings of his predecessors over the past few years.
Why, two years and three months after the terrible Grenfell tragedy, are 324 high-rise blocks still cloaked in the same dangerous, Grenfell-style cladding? Why have 72 private block owners not even got a plan in place to fix the problem? Will the Secretary of State do what his predecessors did not and bring in Labour’s five-point plan to force the pace of the recladding? It would mean: naming and shaming those private block owners now, not some time in the future; setting a hard deadline for block owners to get the work done; updating the sanctions available to councils under the Housing Act 2004; making Government funding available for cladding remediation on private blocks where they have to do the work, and widening now the Government-sponsored testing regime to test comprehensively all suspect non-ACM cladding.
One year and four months after the final Hackitt report was published, why is there no comprehensive implementation plan? Why is there no legislation? Today, the Secretary of State confirmed his intention to respond by the end of the year. Can he do better? Will he guarantee that legislation to implement the much-needed legal changes is part of the Queen’s Speech that is promised for next month?
Ten months after the Government’s contract for the wider testing was due to be completed, the report has not been completed and published. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish in full and without delay—not sometime in the autumn—those results in full?
We welcome the consultation on extending the requirement for sprinklers in new build flats. That builds on the provisions that the Labour Government introduced for high-rise blocks. However, will the Secretary of State go a step further, do what we planned and pledged, and set up a fund so that we can retrofit all high-rise social housing blocks so that the people who live in them can be assured that they will be safe in future?
I welcome the Secretary of State’s plans for a new inspection system, but why on earth does he say that all high-risk buildings may not be inspected until 2021?  That is two years in the future; four years after Grenfell. What is he doing to speed that up?
Grenfell was a national tragedy. People look to the Government in such times for a national response. At every stage, the Government have been too slow to grasp the scale of the problems. Their actions have been too little, too late, and I regret to say that there is too little in today’s statement to give us confidence that the Secretary of State and the Government can rectify their failure to act as they should to make everyone safe after the terrible Grenfell tragedy more than two years ago.

Robert Jenrick: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He and I have worked well together on other issues and I hope that we can do so on this issue, which should be beyond party politics.
We have taken many steps. My predecessors have worked with commitment on the issue. We have given clear advice to building owners, who must take personal responsibility. We have introduced a ban on combustible cladding. We have had the independent review, which has now concluded, by Dame Judith Hackitt, and we have had the consultation, to which we will respond by the end of this year. We now have 150 individuals in my Department working on building safety, many with decades of experience. Again, they are working with great commitment and at pace.
We have put £600 million of public money behind remediation of dangerous ACM cladding in the social sector, of which £200 million is now available in the private sector. We have of course launched a full public inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy and the first phase is expected to report back shortly. Of course, the timing is up to the judge.
We have issued clarified building regulations guidance and we are increasing support for local authorities. Today, I announced £10 million for the protection board and £4 million directly for local authorities. We have already removed a range of substandard products from the market. Is there more to do? Of course there is, and I hope that hon. Members of all parties will see from my statement the number of steps that I intend to take and the pace at which I want my Department to work in the months to come.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about funding; we have made the funding available, and I share his determination to hold private sector building owners to account. As I said in my statement, I will be naming and shaming the individuals and the companies that own the buildings if they do not take action very quickly this autumn. If we come to the end of the fund in December—the right hon. Gentleman asked for a hard deadline; that is a hard deadline—and there are buildings that have not been remediated, or at least applications to the fund have not been put in and there are not exceptional reasons for that, we will take whatever enforcement steps are required at that point. We will work with local authorities to make sure that they robustly use their powers. There are instances of their doing so, and we are working with them already.
The Hackitt review was an important step forward. This is a complex policy area and we all want to ensure that we get this right, so we need to work through the  responses to the consultation carefully, and my Department is doing that. As I said, we will bring forward the legislation at the very earliest opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman has my assurance that I will be working within Government to ensure that happens and to impress upon the Prime Minister and others that legislation needs to come forward at the earliest opportunity. I do not think it should be rushed, which is why I have worked with the Home Secretary to bring in the interim measure to establish the protection board. The individual assessments of buildings will begin as soon as possible once the board has been established. That will provide reassurance to residents. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern that time is passing; I hope he sees that I intend to work at considerable pace to get this done.
On sprinklers, we are currently consulting on the building regulations guidance so that the regulations can come into force for whatever is deemed to be the appropriate threshold. As I said, our preference is 18 metres, but we are open to evidence in other respects. On the retrofitting of sprinklers in existing high-rise buildings, Dame Judith Hackitt and other expert advisers have made it clear that that is not always the right option for a building. It may well be, but other measures could be taken instead that might be more appropriate for an individual building. Dame Judith Hackitt made it clear that it was wise to proceed on an individual basis, so the safety regime that we will be introducing in legislation will ensure that there are individual assessments of buildings. Those assessments may conclude that there is a requirement to retrofit sprinklers, but they might recommend alternative arrangements instead. Obviously, we will ensure that whatever is proposed in those assessments happens in a timely fashion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Again, I appeal for extreme brevity on the part of colleagues; if they do not provide it, they will have to be cut off, I am afraid.

Bob Neill: I wrote to the Secretary of State on Monday about the position of my constituents in Northpoint in Bromley. I welcome his announcement. Will he confirm that the establishment of the protection board ought to and must be used so that people such as my constituents—who have had to do this—may avoid the rigmarole of commissioning a building survey to prove eligibility for the fund and then applying for funding from the pre-application fund, the portal for which was not live at the beginning of the week? We need to cut through that immediately.

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend and I have corresponded and spoken about the issue in his constituency. As I said in my correspondence to him, I encourage the building owners in his constituency to apply to the fund. It will be open on 12 September and we will be handling the applications on a rolling basis. In fact, it will also be possible to get a refund retrospectively, so they could get on with the work immediately and seek the funding at a later date.
My hon. Friend asked me previously about buildings that may have a mix of ACM cladding and other forms of cladding. Public money will obviously be spent for the remediation of the dangerous ACM cladding, but if  it is proven that it is impossible to remediate the ACM cladding without taking off the other forms of cladding, it may well be possible to use public money to fund that as well. I hope my hon. Friend’s constituents will put in an application as soon as possible and that we can move forward at pace in his constituency.

Alison Thewliss: I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, but I agree that he is not quite moving fast enough. We owe it to all those who lost their lives and survived at Grenfell to do more, and to do more quickly. The Scottish ministerial working group is already way ahead of where the UK Government are on this and is moving forward with recommendations. In Scotland, we are looking at 11 metres rather than the 18 metres that the Secretary of State suggests. Has he spoken to his counterpart in the Scottish Government? Will he look at the evidence that Scotland took on making the threshold for mandatory sprinklers in high rises 11 metres rather than 18 metres?
We are looking at regulations around new builds, including having two forms of escape stairs and sound alerts in new builds. Will the Secretary of State look at those ideas? We are also looking at compliance plans for high-risk buildings and at strengthening enforcement.
May I ask—because the Secretary of State has not mentioned this—what the advice has been regarding ThermoWood and similar cladding on low-rise buildings following the fire in Barking? It is clear that there needs to be some advice and regulation in that regard.
I welcome what the Secretary of State said about bringing in a regulator, as we already have a Scottish Housing Regulator in Scotland. Such provision would allow residents to take up any issues they have with the regulator and to prevent something such as Grenfell from happening, because there would be a process through which complaints could be resolved. Has he met with the Scottish Housing Regulator to discuss their work? If not, will he do so? Will he also speak to the Chancellor about the potential VAT reduction to incentivise sprinklers and other remediation works in buildings, as that could make such works easier and cheaper for building owners. Is the Secretary of State convinced that the money he has allocated will be sufficient, because £10 million does not really sound like enough to me?
Finally, the Chancellor has talked about this period of time as being the end of austerity. Fire and rescue services in England have seen a 38% cut since 2005; will the Government restore that money and ensure that fire services are able to respond adequately to emergencies?

Robert Jenrick: With respect to the threshold for sprinklers, we have made it clear that our preference is 18 metres, on the basis of the expert advice that we have received so far, but we are open to reviewing the evidence for an alternative threshold, including a lower one. There are obviously precedents elsewhere for thresholds of 11 metres. As I understand it, 18 metres has historically been the traditional marker above which higher fire safety systems are put in place—that has been the case with cladding and in other regards—but we will be led by the evidence and will pay careful attention to what is happening elsewhere, including in Scotland.
The consultation does ask questions about better signage in high-rise buildings and alert systems that would enable the fire officers attending the scene to  communicate to all residents in the building and give them proper messages about staying in their flats or evacuating, and so on.
The incident in Barking was clearly very concerning. We have published advice about wooden cladding on balconies, so that is in the public domain; I am happy to send the hon. Lady a copy of that advice. As I understand it, the building in Barking, along with another on the same development, were unusual designs with excessive amounts of wood on their balconies. It was an extremely distressing incident, which I do not want to see repeated, but I advise anyone who is concerned to see the advice that we have published.
I will consider the hon. Lady’s request as a Budget representation to the Chancellor. In the recent spending review, we secured the funding that we announced today for local authorities and to fund the protection board, and we believe that that funding is sufficient. We think that £10 million a year is enough to carry out individual urgent inspections of high-risk and high-rise buildings across the country within the timeframe that I have set out.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I remind the House that I am looking for single-sentence questions without preamble.

James Brokenshire: May I support what my right hon. Friend has said in his statement about driving forward cultural change and ensuring that people are safe in their homes? I also encourage him to follow through on the social housing Green Paper to see that tenants have that voice to challenge their landlords and to drive change.

Robert Jenrick: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s work. A number of the initiatives that I announced today commenced during his tenure and he was the driving force behind them. I will, of course, take forward the social housing Green Paper. We are considering the very large number of representations that we received, and I will update the House in due course.

Clive Betts: I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. With regard to ACM cladding, will he give a date when he is going to require—not expect, but require—this cladding to be removed, and what steps and sanctions does he intend to take? In terms of the testing of non-ACM cladding, if that material is found to be as dangerous as ACM cladding, will he give a commitment to provide exactly the same funding for the removal of that cladding so that people in those homes are safe as well?

Robert Jenrick: The announcement that I made today sets out a timetable. The fund is now open. Every private sector building should apply, and we believe that they will. If, over the course of the autumn, some are procrastinating and not complying, I will name and shame them. The hard deadline is the closure of the fund in December. I will consider all options available to us at that point to ensure compliance. With respect to non-ACM cladding, the advice that we have had to date is now in the public domain. Building owners should be acting upon that. The testing process will conclude this autumn. If further updates are required, of course we will put that in the public domain.

Andrew Selous: Does the Secretary of State agree that building regulations can allow us a triple opportunity to build zero-energy bill homes—the homes of the future—quickly and affordably, reduce poverty and reduce greenhouse gases?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend and I share a passion for doing that. We announced in the spring statement a new future homes standard that will ensure that no new home will be built in this country after 2025 without low or zero-carbon heating and the highest levels of energy efficiency. That is good for the environment and good for people on lower incomes.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Can the Secretary of State say a bit more about his protection board? What kind of people will be on it, how many of them will there be, will they have staff or will they be carrying out inspections themselves, and will they monitor how local authorities spend this £10 million?

Robert Jenrick: I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more details of the board, but it will be a partnership between fire and rescue services and other appropriate experts. They in turn will commission probably regional teams of experts to ensure the consistent and competent inspections of buildings across the country.

Vicky Ford: Fire safety matters, but so does the health and safety of workers, so will the Secretary of State keep a focus on the current review of building regulations to make sure that that prohibition on low-level letterboxes is delivered?

Robert Jenrick: Yes, I think we may all welcome that in the coming months.

Andrew Slaughter: There is confusion about the “stay put” policy and tall buildings being approved with single staircases. What has happened to the review of means of escape?

Robert Jenrick: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with an answer.

Peter Bottomley: Will the Secretary of State use the campaigning charity the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership as a way of letting leaseholders in privately owned blocks know what should be happening and of making sure that their interests are taken into account just as much as those in the private sector?

Robert Jenrick: I am very happy to take my hon. Friend up on that. He knows that I share his determination to take forward wider reforms in the leasehold sector, and I will be introducing measures in that respect in due course.

Kate Green: What can be done to identify developers such as Mr Jason Alexander in Greater Manchester who have a track record of repeatedly flouting regulations for buildings they own and to make sure they cannot continue to do so and will face sanctions?

Robert Jenrick: Local authorities have robust enforcement powers available to them, and we are working closely with them to guide and support them. If the hon. Lady would like to come to me with examples, I would be very happy to support her.

Neil O'Brien: First, tenants at Edwin Court in my constituency are having to move out of their homes while vital fire safety work is carried out. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that all housing associations look after their tenants in the process of such work? Secondly, will his review look closely at inadequate fire doors? Inside Housing’s review of this issue is very concerning, as have been answers I have received to parliamentary questions.

Robert Jenrick: I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend on that issue. We have already published updated advice notes on fire doors. It is an important issue that we want to take forward.

Chi Onwurah: Two years after Grenfell, buildings in Newcastle remain with this dangerous cladding, so will the Secretary of State admit that the privatisation of building safety, in effect, with building owners able to pick and choose who inspects them, has failed? Will he review the system generally and give local authorities more control, oversight and resource, as Newcastle City Council has requested?

Robert Jenrick: The hon. Lady can see that we are doing a root-and-branch reform of the building safety system, both in the interim and in the long term with the building safety Bill that will come forward as soon as possible. I am working very closely with local authorities, and today of course I have announced £14 million of additional funding that will help to support them to use their existing powers robustly.

Matt Western: It is almost 12 years since the tragedy in Atherstone on Stour, in Warwickshire, which resulted in the deaths of four firefighters. Sprinklers were subsequently introduced into legislation. Can the Secretary of State not be more ambitious and ensure that sprinklers are retrofitted to all tower blocks and also insist that they be introduced into schools, so that we do not lose schools, as we did in Scotland the other week?

Robert Jenrick: As I think I said earlier, we will always be guided by the safety of residents, but we must be led by the evidence, and the consultation I am launching today will do exactly that. We will consider the appropriate threshold and whether measures need to be applied to other high-risk buildings of different types.

Mike Amesbury: I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. Some 11,500 firefighters’ jobs have been cut since 2010. What representations has he made to other Government Departments?

Robert Jenrick: As I said in my statement, I have worked very closely with the Home Secretary in preparing this announcement. The protection board will be a partnership between the fire and rescue services, the Home Office and my own Department. The funding  that the Chancellor has made available for this will help to ensure that fire and rescue services that participate are properly funded for that work.

Ruth George: As we saw at Whaley Bridge this summer, it is not just residential buildings that can put lives at risk but infrastructure as well. While I welcome the review that is taking place on Whaley Bridge, will the Secretary of State confirm that the rigorous inspection regime will apply to infrastructure buildings as well as residential ones, and that where they are held by separate trusts such as the Canal and River Trust, capital funding will be available where needed?

Robert Jenrick: I am very happy to take that up with the hon. Lady, although I think it is more likely to be a question for the Environment Secretary. I thank her for the work that she and I did over the course of the summer and for the hard work she did for her constituents.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that what my firefighters in West Yorkshire want is to be able to do the job? They want the training, the resources, the time and the prioritisation, and then they will do the job.

Robert Jenrick: With respect, that is exactly what we have announced today.

Mary Glindon: Notwithstanding the consultation, will the Secretary of State apply the same logic about sprinklers to existing tall blocks as he does to new blocks?

Robert Jenrick: I think I have already answered that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Tim Farron—one sentence.

Tim Farron: Given that naming and shaming has been set out by the Secretary of State, could he be more explicit about what sanctions he will be using against the individuals and organisations that fail to comply with making these buildings safe for their residents?

Robert Jenrick: The hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question. In the first instance, we will be working with local authorities, which have such powers available to them. We will be supporting and guiding them to take robust action, but if we reach the end of the year and there are still building owners who have failed to participate—which would be shameful given that taxpayers’ money is available to them—I will consider all options available to us to ensure their compliance.

Jim Shannon: Will the Secretary of State’s Department co-ordinate with the Northern Ireland permanent secretary to ensure that we too in Northern Ireland are securing improved safety measures for residents and for workers?

Robert Jenrick: I will.

GIRLS’ EDUCATION

Alok Sharma: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the UK’s work to support girls’ education around the world—in particular, our work to help provide 12 years of quality education for all girls by 2030, and to leave no girl behind.
Educating girls is the tool that can address a whole host of the world’s economic and social problems. It is one of the five foundations of DFID’s wider work on gender equality, which tackles the barriers that hold women and girls back. Educating girls prevents child marriage and early pregnancy, helps women into the workforce and boosts household incomes and economic growth. Supporting education for girls and women gives them a greater voice. That voice helps them to shape their own future and advocate for changes in their own lives and, very importantly, the lives of other girls and women.
On a recent trip to Ethiopia, I met a group of teenage girls learning to code. One of them told me: “Education is a weapon that can change the world”—and she was absolutely right. Educating girls is central to achieving women’s rights and empowerment and to achieving the sustainable development goals. Nothing could be more important than giving every child the chance to make the most of their talents, ensuring that every child can reach their full potential.
We know that many girls become mothers before they finish school. The vital sexual and reproductive health services that they need are simply not available. In the Sahel, for example, child marriage and early pregnancy are endemic, stopping girls entering and staying in education. Three quarters of girls in Niger are married before their 18th birthday; more than one in four is married before the age of 15.
This situation is not acceptable. We in the UK are leading the action globally to address this injustice. Today I can update the House on the UK’s continued global leadership on girls’ education. The UK is a world leader on girls’ education. I am immensely proud to spearhead the British Government’s girls’ education campaign. That campaign—Leave No Girl Behind—was launched by our Prime Minister in 2018 when he was Foreign Secretary. The campaign leads by example. It gets girls learning, builds international political commitment and boosts global investment so that all girls have access to 12 years of quality education by 2030. The girls education campaign is an essential part of this Government’s broader endeavours to promote global Britain’s core values overseas.
Through our strong political leadership and the UK’s global diplomatic network, we have achieved many notable successes since the launch of the campaign in 2018. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2018, all 53 Commonwealth members agreed to work to ensure 12 years of quality education for all girls by 2030. At the G7 in 2018, over £2.3 billion was raised for girls’ education. At the United Nations General Assembly in 2018, the leaders of the UK, Canada and France came together with key partners from the global south—Jordan, Niger and Kenya—to endorse a joint statement that focused global political attention on  girls’ education. This year we have led and launched the Safe to Learn campaign, which addresses violence that prevents girls from attending and learning in school.
I hope that this demonstrates that the UK is leading across a range of programmes to build commitment and boost investment globally in our mission to ensure all girls access 12 years of quality education by 2030. Only last month, at the G7 leaders summit in Biarritz, our Prime Minister announced £90 million of new funding to provide education for children caught up in crises and conflict. Girls, who are more than twice as likely to be out of school in conflict areas, stand to benefit the most from this support. The Prime Minister also announced £30 million for affirmative finance action for Women in Africa. This will help to break down barriers to women’s economic empowerment by providing up to 10,000 women with essential business training and thousands more with better access to business loans. Unleashing the economic potential of women will boost African economies, trade and investment opportunities, and increase global prosperity. This is in the interests of the UK and African countries and will provide girls with strong female role models.
At the UN General Assembly later this month, which I will attend, girls’ education will be at the heart of the UK’s activities and interventions. All UK-funded education programmes have a focus on girls and young women. Between 2015 and 2019, the UK supported 5.8 million girls to gain a decent education. Our Girls Education Challenge is the world’s largest fund dedicated to girls’ education. It is now supporting up to 1.5 million marginalised girls in 17 countries around the world.
I am absolutely clear that girls’ education remains a key priority for this Government. We must send a strong signal that we will not give up on half of the world’s population. I strongly believe that educating a girl ultimately helps to educate a nation. I commend this statement to the House.

John Bercow: I call the shadow Secretary of State, who should take approximately three minutes.

Dan Carden: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement and welcome him to his new role. He is the third Secretary of State I have faced in this position.
In its “World Development Report 2018”, the World Bank declared an international learning crisis. We know that it is too often girls who are most affected by the lack of education globally. They are twice as likely as boys to never start school. Given these figures, we welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on education, and girls’ education in particular.
While, like the Government, we recognise that the benefits of girls’ education reach far beyond the individual girl, does the Secretary of State agree that education is first and foremost a basic human right? That is why the Labour party is committed to a rights-based approach to education.
Last month, I visited Kenya and saw for myself the huge educational needs in that country. I visited state schools and low-fee private schools, meeting teachers,  pupils, parents and civil society groups, and one thing was clear when it came to education: the people I met there wanted exactly the same things that my constituents in Liverpool want—decent, publicly funded schooling for their children. I am concerned about the growing support that DFID is providing to expanding private education in the global south, because we know that fee-paying private schools never reach the most marginalised children. We know from our own experience in the UK that universal public systems of education are the only way to reach all children. The International Development Committee has said that DFID’s support for private education is “controversial”. The last Independent Commission for Aid Impact assessment of DFID’s work to support the most marginalised girls found that DFID is “falling short” of its ambitions to educate the poorest and most vulnerable girls. One reason for that was a lack of influence by DFID on public Government-run education programmes.
In Kenya, I heard some worrying stories from parents and teachers about their experience with so-called low-fee private schools, and one chain of schools in particular: Bridge International Academies. Parents told me how they had been tricked into believing that their kids would benefit from scholarships, leaving them unable to pay fees and their kids missing chunks of schooling as a result. I met the head of the Kenya National Union of Teachers to discuss education in the country, and he had a very clear message: he wanted the UK to stop using aid money to privatise his country’s education system.
In August last year, Oxfam published its review of a DFID-funded education public-private partnership in Pakistan. It found that schools were failing to reach the most marginalised, relying on very low wages and poor employment practices. In February this year, the Send My Friend to School coalition released a report calling for DFID to ensure that its aid spending goes towards supporting education that is provided universally and is available free at the point of use. In April, a report from the National Education Union and Global Justice Now claimed that UK aid is being used to push an ideological agenda to expand fee-paying private education around the world.
Labour knows the importance of publicly delivered public services. That is why we will set up a new unit for public services within DFID that will champion education as a human right and a public good. Will the Secretary of State listen to the sector, to the unions and to teacher and campaign groups in the UK and the global south, who say that education is a universal right guaranteed by the state and not a market to make profits from? Will he shift his Department’s focus on education towards a human rights-based approach, so that all girls get the education they are entitled to?

Alok Sharma: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. We are at a time when there is an enormous amount of rancour in this House, and debates are perhaps not as good-natured as you would like, Mr Speaker, but this is an area on which I think we can all agree across the House. Education matters for every child, whether in our country or the developing world. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased at the reaffirmation yesterday of the 0.7% commitment in the Chancellor’s spending review statement.
I very much share the hon. Gentleman’s view that the work we do in developing countries is incredibly important. He talked about his visit to Kenya. I was in Nigeria recently to see the work we have done in Kaduna state, working with the state—the public sector—to ensure that thousands of teachers are retrained appropriately. I visited a school where the school roll was failing only a couple of years ago—it was down to 400—but it is almost double now, and over half the children there are young girls. I had an opportunity to talk to them, and they were incredibly enthusiastic and positive, not just about their own future but about their own country. That is because of the great education they are getting.
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I want to respond to his point about where DFID’s funding goes. I want to make it clear that over 95% of my Department’s education funding goes to the public sector to support improvements in education outcomes. That is right and proper. We are working across the developing world with countries and their education ministries to provide support. Of course, where state provision is weak or non-existent, it is right that we work with non-state providers, including paid-for schools, to provide education to children who would otherwise get none, and we continue to work with a range of education partners to ensure the best results and value for money.
The hon. Gentleman talked about ideology. There is one education ideology that I suspect we share, which is that it is vital that every child gets the right level of education. We are both committed to ensuring 12 years of education for every girl across the world.

Harriett Baldwin: In this difficult week, it is wonderful to hear the Secretary of State shine a spotlight on this incredibly valuable and important part of what the UK does. It is such good value for money. Can he commit to exploring whether the UK could be spending a greater share of our overall aid budget in this incredibly valuable area?

Alok Sharma: May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who did so much work in this area during her time in government? I remember having conversations with her about this issue, which she is passionate about. We spend around £1 billion a year on education, in official development assistance, and it will fluctuate over the years. It is important that we also focus on outcomes, but I will take on board what she said about our trying to do even more in this area.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Extreme brevity is required.

Chris Law: I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place; he will be the fourth in little over two years. Sustainable development goal 4 included a new agenda for global education, vowing to
“ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”.
I fully welcome this commitment of UK aid to helping every girl to get an education. As we know, education can be the most valuable tool in the fight against global poverty, yet too many girls remain without access. In sub-Saharan Africa, 52.2 million girls of primary and secondary school age are out of school.
The education of women and girls must be made a priority in all educational international development programmes, and such programmes must explicitly address complex factors that keep girls out of education. Girls are more than twice as likely to be out of school if they live in conflict areas, and young women living in conflict are nearly 90% percent more likely to be out of secondary school than those in other countries.
Education is a long-term challenge and one that is easily disrupted. Humanitarian crises are becoming more protracted, and one major challenge is coming up with a long-term solution to the children whose education is disrupted by this. Last week, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees published a report that found that, of the 7.1 million school-age refugee children around the world, more than half do not go to school. With one third of the £90 million funding earmarked for those living through the world’s forgotten crises, I ask: what proportion will be spent on those girls who have fled conflict but have been left without an education due to displacement?
Furthermore, the Government’s programmes to help women in developing countries overwhelmingly focus on children—those under about 10—and adult women, and there is a gap that adolescent and teenage girls can fall through, leaving them out of programmes to get them into education and keep them safe from sexual violence. Can the Secretary of State tell me how he plans to address that specific age group?

Alok Sharma: I am delighted that, once again, we have a shared view about the importance of girls’ education. The hon. Gentleman is right that education is a long-term challenge. He talks about the UK’s commitment. The Prime Minister was absolutely committed to the 12 years of education for girls during his time at the Foreign Office—in fact, he launched our work on this—and he is totally committed now, so I think the hon. Gentleman will find that this is a key area of focus for us.
I also share the hon. Gentleman’s view that we have too many children across the world who are not in education. The latest figures suggest that over 260 million children, of whom about 130 million are girls, are not in education, and that is not good enough.
The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the £90 million commitment that the Prime Minister has made for educational emergencies. I can inform him that this includes £85 million for Education Cannot Wait, which will support 600,000 children, including girls, in emergencies. I hope he will appreciate that we are absolutely focused on helping children across the world, with this particular money very much focused on those living in emergency areas.

Bob Blackman: Across the developing world, the main obstacle to girls being in education is the lack of running water, sanitation and toilet facilities. My right hon. Friend has recently visited Africa, including Nigeria. Ten per cent. of the girls in the world are not in education. What more can we do to invest in this area so that we can provide the facilities for girls to have education?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend raises a really important point, which is that basic sanitation and the availability of clean water are vital. I saw one of the projects in  Ethiopia that has been funded through DFID, and I had an opportunity to meet some of those who are benefiting from it. I spoke to a lady who previously spent five hours a day getting water for her children, and now she is able to spend that time working, raising money to educate her kids.

Stephen Twigg: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment to this important role in Government. I welcome very warmly both his statement and the commitment the UK made at the G7 to Education Cannot Wait. Clearly, we need other donors to rise to the challenge in the way the UK has. What will he be doing over the next few weeks to ensure that the full replenishment of Education Cannot Wait is achieved, so that children living as refugees get the education that they deserve?

Alok Sharma: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but also for the very fine work he does in leading his International Development Committee. We have always had a very good relationship and I very much hope that that will continue.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to be doing even more in terms of promoting not just the UK but others to corral in finance into this area. I talked in the statement about the amount of money that was corralled in last year at UNGA. As I have said, girls’ education will be a key focus of the work we will do at this year’s General Assembly.

John Hayes: G. K. Chesterton said:
“Education is simply the soul of society as it passes from one generation to the next.”
The work we do in this country will both be exported and inspire others worldwide. So will the Secretary of State look at girls studying STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—and particularly going into engineering in this country? The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and I worked on this when I was in government. It will inspire others. It will nourish our society, as we nurture the taste and talents of young women with a practical, vocational and technical bent.

John Bercow: Have it framed and put it up in the loo.

Alok Sharma: My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. Of course, studying STEM subjects is really important in the UK, but also abroad. He showered me with a quote. May I give him one back from a young lady I met who is learning to code as a result of funding provided by DFID? This was when I met a group of young people in Nigeria. She said:
“Education is a weapon that can change the world.”
That is what young women in developing countries believe, and we are providing such support to help them to build better futures.

Chi Onwurah: As chair of the all-party group on Africa and of the all-party group on diversity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering and maths, I wholly welcome  this emphasis on women and education, just as I condemn the Prime Minister’s past remarks when he implied that women went into higher education to find husbands. As well as the emphasis on women in STEM, will the Secretary of State say what he is doing to ensure that period poverty is not a barrier to continued attendance at schools in developing countries, an issue that was investigated by the all-party group on Africa ?

Alok Sharma: I do not want to introduce a discordant note into the statement, as we are in agreement on much of this, but I would just point out that the Prime Minister, when he was the Foreign Secretary, was absolutely behind launching the 12 years of education for every girl campaign, so I would say it is slightly churlish for the hon. Lady to raise the points she has. However, on the wider point about family planning, I agree that work needs to be done. I saw some of the work that we are doing during my visit to Nigeria, and we will continue to work on that. If she has particular ideas, I would welcome her coming to have a discussion with me.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that I recently went on a visit to New York. In New York, I met Yasmine Sherif, the director of Education Cannot Wait, a global fund established by the UK in 2016, which aims to ensure that children in conflict zones—some of the most vulnerable children in the world—receive an education. What is the Secretary of State doing to support that vital organisation?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend raises an important point. She talks about Yasmine, whom she met, and who I suspect, like her, is a role model and a champion for young girls—she in her constituency and Yasmine in other areas. On support, as I have pointed out, a large element of the £90 million—£85 million—is going to Education Cannot Wait. I agree with her that this is an incredibly important programme to support.

Sarah Champion: Female genital mutilation, child sexual exploitation, child marriage and child trafficking all cause girls to drop out of school. DFID and the British Council have been excellent at changing culture abroad. Can the Secretary of State say how we can learn those lessons and bring those lessons to the UK so that we can change our culture here?

Alok Sharma: First, I agree with the hon. Lady that education is absolutely vital because we know that, for every girl who goes to secondary school, infant mortality is cut in half. About 12 million children would escape stunting due to malnutrition if every girl went to secondary school, and we would see significantly higher GDP growth across the world. Of course, we share any learnings that we have across Government, and we will continue to do so.

Julian Lewis: rose—

John Bercow: Ah, yes, the good doctor—Dr Julian Lewis.

Julian Lewis: In how many third-world countries are girls like Malala at risk of attack or assassination, and do we have any programmes to assist the Governments in those countries to protect them?

Alok Sharma: I think the simple answer is too many, but the wider work that DFID does on humanitarian support and security clearly aids the objective of making sure that children—girls—are able to go to school safely and live in an environment where they feel that they will not be threatened if they go to school.

Barry Sheerman: I welcome the Secretary of State and this G7 initiative. Does he accept that this is not just about Governments? Why do we not involve more legislators around the world, working together and using the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to share good practice and ideas? I chair the World Health Organisation global legislators group to cut road deaths, which is a very good model. Can some of us, on an all-party basis, come to talk to him? This is a great campaign and we should be helping legislators around the world to improve conditions for girls.

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues in the House will know, in all my previous roles, I have, I hope, been very open to having discussions and, indeed, learning from colleagues who may have much more detailed knowledge built up over many years, so I would welcome an opportunity to sit down with him and other colleagues.

Peter Bottomley: Forty years ago, when I was a trustee of Christian Aid, we knew that educating a girl could break cycles of poverty in one generation and could also lead to later marriage, fewer children, more prosperity and better health. Can the Secretary of State say now, or in a later statement, how the increase in maths provision for these girls around the world has been improving, thanks to our efforts?

Alok Sharma: May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work over many years in this area? He has highlighted one of the organisations he has been involved in. The support we have provided over the last four years has meant that 5.8 million more girls are getting a decent education and it is vital that we continue this work.

Chris Matheson: I welcome this statement. When I go on “Send My Friend to School” visits in Chester, girls’ education is always the No. 1 issue raised with me by British schoolchildren. However, will the Secretary of State confirm that, if we do not get right nutrition and healthcare as part as the   package that supports education, that could damage education for girls? It is about getting the whole picture right.

Alok Sharma: The hon. Gentleman raises a vital point, and we need a holistic approach to our work. I believe that is very much what DFID does as a Department.

Luke Graham: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments: no girl or young woman should be denied access to education, and I am proud that we are funding schemes at home and abroad. Will he confirm that he is prioritising girls and young women in conflict zones, as well as those in overseas territories and our Commonwealth partners who have suffered from natural disasters?

Alok Sharma: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does locally in championing education in his constituency. As I set out, the vast majority of the £90 million that the Prime Minister announced at the G7 is for conflict zones and to help those in Syria and areas such as Cox’s Bazar. We will continue to focus on that.

Alison Thewliss: A third of girls in Yemen are reported to be married before their 18th birthday and 9% are married before they are 15. What is the Minister doing to ensure that those girls in Yemen in a conflict zone are getting an education and what will he do to end conflict?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Lady will know, we do a wider piece of work across Government to end conflict, working with our partners internationally. For example, around £3 billion has been put into a UK programme on Syria. Clearly, however, we must keep focusing on these areas. It is important that, if children are caught up in these areas, they continue to receive basic education and we are focused on that.

Martin Whitfield: I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. Will he confirm that good practices such as the “Send My Friend to School” initiative are important in exploiting the messaging on this, as is the mental health of girls involved in education? What will the Government do to continue to support the mental health of young women in their education?

Alok Sharma: Mental health is of course an important issue, which has risen up the agenda over a number of years. The Government are doing their part through the Departments of Health and Social Care and of Education and, where DFID is able to offer support, it will do so.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg: With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week. I shall begin by apologising to the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that this statement is later than it would normally have been, which is to ensure that the information before the House is as full as possible. I understand that that has caused some travel arrangement difficulties, which is a matter of regret.
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 9 September—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by debate to approve a motion relating to section 7 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (historical institutional abuse), followed by debate to approve a motion relating to section 6 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (victims’ payment), followed by debate to approve a motion relating to section 5 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (human trafficking), followed by debate to approve a motion relating to section 4 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (gambling), followed by general debate on a motion relating to section 3(2) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion relating to an early parliamentary general election.
The House will not adjourn until Royal Assent has been received to all Acts. A message may be received from the Lords Commissioners.
I will return to the House on Monday with further information if necessary.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House. I was going to say that it is the usual custom and convention to thank him, but I appreciate that he has apologised—at least I abide by custom and convention. I also thank him for being vertical when he gave his statement.
The Opposition will co-operate with the Government on the Northern Ireland legislation to ensure that it goes through, and we are obviously keen for Lords amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.6) Bill, if there are any, to come back to the House to be debated. Will the Leader of the House say exactly what the motion relating to an early parliamentary election will be, and whether it will be similar to that under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011? When is he likely to table it?
As I said I would do every week, I raise the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Will the Leader of the House update the House on her case, given that things have taken a different turn, and on the cases of the other UK nationals who are in prison? Kamal Foroughi was detained in May 2011, Anousheh Ashouri was detained in August 2017, and British Council employee Aras Amiri was detained in March 2018 and has now been given a 10-year sentence for visiting her grandmother.
I asked the previous Leader of the House about the Queen’s Speech and I know that that has been thrown back at me a number of times. We have had the longest  continuous parliamentary Session since the Acts of Union 1800. Hardly any business was legislated for while the Government were going through a leadership election. The Government chose to have a long Session and no legislation was progressed, despite my asking for that, as well as for Opposition-day debates, which I have not been given. We should have realised that something was going to happen when someone asked when the Trade Bill would come back and the Leader of the House responded, “Why would we want to do that?” That should have given us a clue. A number of Bills—the Immigration Bill, the Agriculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill and the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill—are stuck. We know that they fall when Parliament is prorogued, but not statutory instruments—they are still live. Will the Leader of the House say what the Government plan to do with those Bills?
I asked the previous leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), whether we could sit during the conference recess. We on this side of the House were ready to do that. There is nothing conventional about the Government’s plans for Prorogation. Most prorogations last a few days and take place just before the Queen’s Speech, but this one is five weeks, which will be the longest in more than 40 years.
Will the Leader of the House clarify what he said during the debate yesterday? When asked, he did not say whether he knew on 16 August that the House was going to be prorogued. In fact, he said he was at Lord’s. I will ask him again: on 16 August, when he was at Lord’s, did he know whether the House was going to be prorogued? Had he seen that email? Two weeks later, he was on a place to Aberdeen airport. When was he told that he was going to Balmoral and when did he know what was in the proclamation?
We do not trust this Government—they take their lead from the Prime Minister, who says one thing and does something else. When he wanted to be Prime Minister, he wrote in a letter to all his colleagues that he was
“not attracted to arcane procedures such as the prorogation of Parliament”.
He said he was a one-nation Conservative, yet he has prorogued Parliament and withdrawn the Whip—possibly sacked, possibly expelled—from some of the most honourable right hon. and hon. Members, who have given great service to their party and country. Now we face the fact that the right hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) has resigned and no longer wants to stand—the Prime Minister’s own brother cannot take it anymore. That is why we do not trust the Government and the Prime Minister. He secretly agreed to suspend Parliament two weeks before denying it would happen. He is treating Parliament, democracy and the people with contempt.
Twenty-two law professors have written an open letter to say that the Prorogation is clearly designed to evade scrutiny, including of legislation, and to prevent MPs from asking key questions on EU negotiations and no-deal planning. So what were the reasons for the Prorogation at that time, without recourse to coming to the Chamber and explaining it?
An important Bill to stop a no-deal exit was passed yesterday and is making its way through the Lords. Here are the reasons why it is important. The director of the CBI has said:
“No deal is a tripwire into economic chaos that could harm our country…for years to come.”
Is that scaremongering? The General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress said that no deal would be a “disaster for working families”. Is that scaremongering? The President of the National Farmers’ Union said that
“you will have many farmers going out of business”
and the Food and Drink Federation has warned that it would
“inflict serious—and in some cases mortal—damage on UK food and drink.”
Is that scaremongering?
The British Medical Association said in its report that the dangers of a no deal could lead to the disintegration of the NHS. The fashion industry, worth £32 billion, says no deal should be avoided. The Incorporated Society of Musicians said no-deal Brexit will incur major disruption to the music industry worth £4.5 billion. Are they scaremongering?
Guy Verhofstadt, Brexit co-ordinator for the EU, said that the only people who will prosper are the wealthy bankers and hedge fund managers who have bet on chaos.
I think the Leader of the House also owes an apology to Dr David Nicoll, who was part of Operation Yellowhammer. When will the Leader of the House publish Operation Yellowhammer, or does he think the Government are scaremongering?
Mr Speaker, they are like the wolves of Whitehall. They are marauding over our customs and our conventions. It is absolutely outrageous, the way they are destroying them. The Prime Minister only governs by custom and convention.
I think the Leader of the House also owes an apology to Mr Speaker. I think he was heard on air to say that Mr Speaker was wrong, but I want to remind him of his bedtime reading, “Erskine May”, and of the dedication compiled by officials, both past and present. It says this:
“To the…Speaker of the House of Commons and to the Lord Speaker, Speakers…of the Commonwealth Parliaments on whom fall the great responsibilities of guardianship of the parliamentary system.”
We saw that this week and we thank you, Mr Speaker.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me deal with the last point first. I would not have dreamed of saying that you were wrong. I made the point, the classic point, that you have not eyes to see with nor lips to speak except as directed by this House. I believe, Mr Speaker, that that is what you do, properly. You have consistently taken the view that the House should be able to debate what it wishes to debate, although I will confess that sometimes if I were in your position I might come to a different decision. That is not in any sense disrespectful to Mr Speaker.
Let me come to this panoply of questions that we have had. First, I thank the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for supporting us on Northern Ireland legislation and looking forward to the Lords Amendments. The early parliamentary motion will be put down tonight, as it needs to be, before the close of business.
On the very important issue that she raises on every occasion, relating to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the Foreign Office is doing what it can. It is a very difficult situation. It is so important that the Foreign Office, in  all these consular cases—the hon. Lady mentioned a number of them—is as vigorous as it can be. In my view, the statement made by a former Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston in the Don Pacifico affair, is the right approach for Governments to take in defending the interests of British citizens abroad. We should be incredibly robust about it. I believe the Foreign Office is doing as much as it possibly can, but sadly we cannot tell other countries what to do.
We then come on to the Queen’s Speech and what will happen to the Bills that are stuck. The Bills that are stuck will become unstuck because they will fall on prorogation. That is the sort of de-supergluing process that we are able to use. I am glad to tell the House that all the Bills that are needed for leaving the European Union on 31 October are in place.
We then come to the diary questions. What was I doing? [Interruption.] On the ability to leave on 31 October, all the legislation that is needed is in place. We have 580 statutory instruments to make sure it will all happen smoothly. That is all done. It is ready. It is prepared. Her Majesty’s Government have been a model of efficiency and efficacy in preparing this. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is perhaps one of the most impressive administrative Ministers this country has ever seen.
I was asked questions about my knowledge of the next Queen’s Speech. The hon. Lady is aware that one of the main duties of the Leader of the House is to prepare for the next Queen’s Speech. That is what one does. That is what one is briefed on from the very beginning. Bids for items in the next Queen’s Speech come to the Leader of the House, so that has been part of my briefing from the point at which I was appointed and that is the reason why this Session is coming to an end. It has gone on for far too long, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out—as indeed did the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who seems to be fidgeting at the moment in an uncharacteristically fidgety way.

John Bercow: How does one fidget in an un-fidgety way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Mr Speaker, your knowledge of being able to fidget is so extensive that I am sure you will be able to tell the House or make it a chapter in your memoirs on un-fidgety fidgeting.
That is the straightforward reason for the Prorogation. The Prorogation is taking place to have a new Queen’s Speech to set out the really exciting one nation policies that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wishes to set out. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I know and we all know, because we have heard you say it many times, that however much chuntering there is from the other side you will make time for me to answer all their questions, which I am looking forward to with eager anticipation. I will be better able to answer them if they wait their turn, rather than making noises imitating a farmyard that I cannot translate because I am not Dr Doolittle. If only I were Dr Doolittle, life might be easier. So that is the routine part of my responsibility and that is why Parliament will be prorogued.
On the conference recess, on the last occasion I appeared at the Dispatch Box to answer these questions I raised the issue of the conference recess. Sitting opposite me was none other than that really distinguished figure, the Opposition Chief Whip. [Interruption.] It was not  the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench now, but the Opposition Chief Whip. When I said that we would have the conference recess, the Opposition Chief Whip nodded. As we all know, a nod from the Opposition Chief Whip is like the nod of Zeus: what it nods at is done and is viewed as authoritative, so let us have no questions about that.
The hon. Lady came on to scaremongering. She seems to wish to compete to become the scaremonger-in-chief. The preparations have been made. They are in place and they have been done with remarkable efficiency. But yes, a lot of remainers wish to make our skins crawl. I am afraid it seems to me that Dr David Nicholl is as irresponsible as Dr Wakefield. [Interruption.] I will repeat: as irresponsible as Dr Wakefield, in threatening that people will die because we leave the European Union. What level of irresponsibility was that?
In conclusion, I say to the hon. Lady and the House that this Government have offered them the opportunity, if they do not like what we are doing, to seek an election and put themselves to the voters, but they dare not do that. They are frightened of the voters and all they wish to do is obstruct democracy.

Sir David Amess: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future staging of party conferences? It seems to me that these conferences have changed out of all recognition and in future could easily be held over a long weekend.

John Bercow: What a very sound question. I am even more delighted than usual to have called the hon. Gentleman so early. These are meetings of voluntary organisations which could perfectly well take place over a weekend. The idea that we should be away from our main place of work for this sort of indulgence will strike very large numbers of people across the country as bizarre.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Mr Speaker, I wondered if you were going to suggest a job share. Perhaps I should sit in as Speaker on occasion and you should answer questions as Leader of the House. I am sorry to say that I have a slightly different answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). Party conferences are an important part of the political process. I am really glad to say that this year’s Conservative party conference is going to be primarily an occasion for members. We are going to get back to putting members front and central, because they are the people who select us and for whom we work, and who campaign for us. Party conferences are important and it is a reasonable time to have. This House has not been that busy, it has to be said, earlier in the Session. Therefore, having a party conference is perfectly reasonable.

Pete Wishart: I thank the Leader of the House, esquire, for announcing whatever this is supposed to be for next week, and say to him that if he is starting to feel a bit tired, he should just feel free to have a little lie down. But perhaps if he is going to do that, he should mention it to his hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) next to him.
According to the statement, there will be another attempt at a general election on Monday—perhaps the Leader of the House can just confirm that. It looks almost certain that straight after that, the Government’s intention is to suspend democracy—contemptuously—for five weeks, much against the desires and wishes of this House and the people we are elected here to serve.
But I congratulate the Leader of the House on an incredible week—not on becoming an internet sensation with his “Victorian dad lying down” stuff, but on his shrewd, stellar and steady management of the House business. He has managed to lose every single vote for this Prime Minister. No Prime Minister has ever got off to such a terrible start. He has managed to lose his Government majority by deselecting decent and honourable members of his party who have served their country and party with such distinction. He has lost control of the business of the House, and last night his unelected Lords in the other place put up the white flag to what they call the surrender Bill. In the last few hours, we have had the resignation of the right hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) in his desire to spend less time with his family.
There is only one piece of business that the Leader of the House craves: to secure his general election while still being able to get the no deal that the Government crave. To his great frustration and that of the Brexit cult that occupy the Government Benches, they have been unable to get away with it. His general election is coming, but everybody has to be certain that their no deal is dead and buried.
The funniest thing about the general election motion last night was the sight of Scottish Conservatives trooping through the Lobby in favour of an immediate general election on the day that an opinion poll showed that they would be decimated in Scotland. If we want to see a demonstration of slavish loyalty to the no-deal Brexit cult cause, we need look no further than these hon. Gentlemen. This is not just turkeys voting for Christmas; it is turkeys lathering themselves in cranberry sauce and shoving the stuffing up their own posteriors.
I have a feeling, though, that this will probably be the last opportunity to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place. He wanted a legacy—how about: the least successful Leader of the House that we have ever had?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful as always to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic charm. What we have seen today is, I think in history, unprecedented, unknown and unseen. We have seen a frightened Scotsman. They are people who are known for their courage, their forthrightness and their sturdiness, and they are scared of going in front of their voters. They have run away from an election. They are—what is it?—“tim’rous beasties”, I think they must be called, who dare not face their voters. I just wonder whether that is because of the narrow majority that the hon. Gentleman has. He parades it as concern for Conservative Members, and he is worried that they may be in danger, but surely if that is what he really thinks, he should be embracing the opportunity for an election and pushing forward for it.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned, as did the hon. Member for Walsall South, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who has decided to leave Her Majesty’s Government. This is something that we know about across the country: families disagree  on Brexit. My enormously distinguished, wise and good sister, Annunziata, has gone and joined the Brexit party—and not only joined it, but got elected to the European Parliament. We all have, within our families, these disagreements over an issue that is of fundamental importance to us—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is of fundamental importance to us all, and that is why it is right to put this back to the British people in a general election, so that they can decide and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) can restore the honour of the people of Scotland by showing he is not afraid.

John Bercow: These are richly enjoyable exchanges. That would ordinarily be the case in the presence of the Leader of the House in any circumstance, but I believe that it is more so because, unless I am much mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman is not the only Rees-Mogg present and observing our proceedings today. It is a great pleasure and privilege to welcome little Moggs in particular, of whom there are several, and other members of the Rees-Mogg dynasty.
Notwithstanding that joy, one of the responsibilities of the Speaker is to safeguard the rights of Members in respect of business to follow. I make that point simply to underline the imperative of brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike in observing that, exceptionally today, it may not be possible for everybody to be called on the business statement. We will do our best, and the quest for brevity can be led—I think with distinction—by Dr Julian Lewis.

Julian Lewis: May we have a statement or debate on the circumstances of the seizure of a British-flagged tanker by Iran in the Gulf? If there is not enough time for that, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Defence, because the Defence Committee on Monday has a session planned, but the former Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt)—has so far not yet received the information that she requires from the Ministry of Defence to enable her to give testimony to us?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is a matter of the utmost importance and I shall certainly ask my office to contact the Ministry of Defence. It is only right that Select Committees should get the information that they require.

Ian Mearns: I thank the Leader of the House for the statement and for his apology. When I was considering the delay in the normal timing of the business statement this morning, I was wondering whether he was carrying on his normal practice of having a lie-in.
The Leader of the House will be aware that if Prorogation happens, the Backbench Business Committee ceases to exist and has to be re-elected. I will therefore be writing to him with a list of as yet unheard debates, should any time become available after Prorogation or possibly after a general election. They include debates on women’s mental health, which is vital; the role and sufficiency of youth work, which we have heard so much about recently; diabetes services with targeted prevention strategies;  the 50th anniversary of the Open University; and parental mental illness with its impact on children’s outcomes. It is a list of things that are important and still need to be aired. By the way, if Prorogation does happen, there is also an application in for a debate about Baby Loss Awareness Week, which happens from 9 to 15 October every year.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the whole House, for the wonderful work he does on the Backbench Business Committee and in ensuring that the House gets to debate the issues at the forefront of its mind and that Parliament functions effectively. I take very seriously what he said about the debates that may come up after an election or a Queen’s Speech and that require attention before the Backbench Business Committee has been reformed.
As to my recumbent position, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my office is drawing up a position paper for me and is coming up with a recline to take.

Edward Leigh: We have indeed had a panoply of questions, apart from the obvious one: when the motion on the early general election is considered at the end of Monday, will the Bill that the House of Commons passed yesterday on ruling out no deal have received Royal Assent? The reason I ask is that I distinctly heard the Leader of the Opposition say yesterday that once the Bill became law, he would vote for an early general election. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be quite extraordinary, after this long Session of Parliament, which is clearly deadlocked, if every Member of Parliament—or at least two thirds—did not vote for an immediate general election to put this to the people?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is indeed an addled Parliament that is not able to get things done, and the conclusion that my right hon. Friend draws is correct. Royal Assent will be given speedily once the Bill has completed its passage through the House of Lords and come back to us, if necessary, with any amendments. I obviously cannot predict what their lordships will do, but if it completes those stages, it will receive Royal Assent, and speedily.

John Bercow: Single-sentence inquiries. Jessica Morden.

Jessica Morden: With the Government’s disgraceful proroguing of Parliament, not only will hon. Members be unable to scrutinise Ministers on Brexit, but I will be robbed of the opportunity to press Ministers following Tata’s announcement that it proposes to close all steelworks in Newport, so what will the Leader of the House do to facilitate a debate so that we can all fight to save our steel industry?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There simply would not have been time for such a debate anyway, because we were about to go into the conference recess. We are losing four or five days of parliamentary time. There will then be a fresh new Session full of interest and excitement, with opportunities for debates on a range of issues.

Karen Bradley: MPs across Staffordshire are very concerned about news that school transport provision will not now be available to  those who have to pay for their school transport, due to a ruling about disability regulations. I will not go into the technical details now, and I appreciate that time is short, but would the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this important matter?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is an important issue, and I have a nasty feeling that it is the result of some tiresome EU regulation, so after 31 October we may be free to deal with it ourselves.

Ellie Reeves: City airport consultation plans have proposed an additional 110 flights a day, many of which would fly over my constituency. Given that we already face noise and air pollution from the aircraft, and given that we are in a climate change emergency, may we have an urgent debate in Government time on airport expansions?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: City airport is a fantastic airport—convenient to use and very well run—but I understand the concerns about the increasing number of flights from airports. The hon. Lady knows that there will be many opportunities to secure debates—Adjournment debates and Backbench Business debates—when Parliament returns in October.

Thomas Tugendhat: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need an urgent debate on planning? We have recently seen delays in various planning authorities—particularly the Planning Inspectorate—reviewing planning applications, which has led to the five-year lag in planning. That means that groups of applications that are not part of the planning process from the borough council are being put in, which particularly affects areas such as the monastery and the nunnery in West Malling.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am always concerned about anything that might affect a monastery. If we have a Queen’s Speech, obviously we will have the normal days of debate that follow, during which I am sure it will be possible to raise the important issue of planning.

Tracy Brabin: Jess, my constituent, was heavily pregnant when her husband was stealing from her bank account. She went to her bank but was told that, because she had given him her PIN, that was acceptable, and the police had no legislation to support her. Kirsty Ferguson was married and had homes, but when she and her husband divorced, he refused to sell them, against court orders. She was pushed into penury and emotional distress. What can we do after Prorogation, now that the Domestic Abuse Bill will fall, to support these women, not only in Batley and Spen but across the country?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The issues that the hon. Lady raises are of fundamental importance. We will all have had similar cases brought to us in our constituencies. The Prime Minister is fully behind the Domestic Abuse Bill. I cannot tell the hon. Lady what precisely will be in the Queen’s Speech, but I think that I can give a steer that it  would be a great surprise to all of us if the Bill were not revived very quickly, because her concern is shared across the House.

John Bercow: A single sentence. Henry Smith.

Henry Smith: May we have a statement from the Health Secretary on when NHS England’s new genomic medicine service will be fully operational?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I will certainly pass on that question to the Secretary of State.

Alex Norris: All summer, the hunger in communities such as mine across the country was tangible. Voluntary sector organisations are stepping in to feed our children. Why are the Government not doing more? May we have a debate on feeding our children in the holidays?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. The Government carried out a pilot scheme that fed 50,000 children over the summer. The scheme is being evaluated to consider whether it should be rolled out more widely.

Luke Graham: The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), previously made a statement from the Treasury Bench that a debt is owed to Equitable Life victims. When can we debate the matter further and ensure that the debt is repaid?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Equitable Life issue really ought to have been finished by now, but of course it concerns many Members and many of our constituents. I was a member of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, so I share my hon. Friend’s concerns.

Judith Cummins: What is happening in Kashmir is an outrage. The UK Government must do everything they can to bring about lasting peace and stability, and to restore human rights to the region. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the crisis in Kashmir?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I understand that the matter was covered very fully in Foreign Office questions, and the Foreign Office is taking it with the utmost seriousness. An opportunity to debate it will of course follow the Queen’s Speech.

James Brokenshire: Will my right hon. Friend ask a Transport Minister to make a statement on the future of the Southeastern train contract? Under the franchise arrangements, the competition has been cancelled. My constituents are keen to see the benefits of the new trains that the new contract would deliver.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I will pass on what my right hon. Friend has said to the relevant Secretary of State. Problems with trains always beset the House, and I fear that if we debated them all we would never have time for anything else.

Patricia Gibson: I was alarmed to hear reports that the Leader of the House has previously suggested that all council workers should wear bowler hats, that Somerset should have its own time zone, that he has apparently met a group that favours the voluntary repatriation of black immigrants, and that he has disputed climate change. Does he still believe these things, or has he finally decided to live on planet Earth?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The first half of that question referred to jokes, and the second half was wrong.

Rehman Chishti: Hospital Radio Medway has raised a real concern about hospital radio stations being able to get appropriate licensing from Ofcom, which is preventing patients from accessing radio in hospital. That cannot be right. May we have an urgent statement or debate on that?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Hospital radio is very important  for cheering people up when they are in hospital, and actually it is a very good training ground for people starting a career in radio. I think that it is a more suitable topic for an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate, rather than taking time in the Chamber.

Angela Eagle: The Leader of the House has been extremely coy about when Prorogation will actually happen. He has not announced that it will be Tuesday or Thursday. If the general election motion falls again, will Prorogation we delayed so that he can have a third go?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Privy Council determined that a Commission should be established under the Lord High Chancellor, and that under the Great Seal, Parliament could be prorogued on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Parliament will be prorogued according to a decision made by that Commission. That Commission has not yet made its decision.

Bob Blackman: On Indian independence day, families were attacked outside the Indian high commission by thugs, and on Tuesday more thugs stoned and pelted the high commission. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary or another Government Minister on what actions can be taken to protect those diplomatic areas of our society for our allies and friends?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I was unaware of that, but it is deeply shocking that the representative office of so close an ally should be attacked in the United Kingdom. We should take every measure, as part of our diplomatic obligations, to protect the offices of all embassies in this country, but particularly those of friends. It is a matter that I am sure the Foreign Secretary will take most seriously.

David Hanson: Is next Monday’s fixed-term Parliaments motion under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 or another mechanism?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As I said earlier, the motion will be put down later today.

Mark Pawsey: Later this month the world’s third largest sporting event will take place in Japan: the rugby world cup. It would not be taking place without the exploits of a certain William Webb Ellis in my constituency back in 1823. The town will be celebrating, so may we take the opportunity to have a debate on the economic benefits of sporting events?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My general view of the world is that everything good that has ever happened started in Somerset, although I must confess that rugby did start in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which I cannot claim to be part of Somerset—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) says from a sedentary position that she is sure that I will try, but I think that would be too great a stretch, geographically. It is a fantastic sporting event, and I know that many people will enjoy watching it, and we should absolutely encourage people to participate. I think, Mr Speaker, that your predilection is for tennis, and mine is for cricket, so there are many sports that people will be interested in.

Marion Fellows: The post office network is in crisis. A Government contract allowing asylum seekers to access cash at post offices is due to expire in November. May we have a debate in Government time on the number of Government contracts that could be used to increase revenue for postmasters?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: A postmaster came to see me in my constituency surgery recently to discuss that issue. I know that it concerns many Members because of the wonderful work that is done by post offices as part of their communities. However, the hon. Lady knows how to ask for debates, and knows about the many mechanisms that are available.

Rachel Maclean: My right hon. Friend has a great deal of personal experience of paternity, as we see in the Gallery today. Does he agree that we must have an urgent debate on the return of maternity services to the Alex hospital in Redditch, as demanded by my constituents?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I do indeed attach great importance to paternity and, indeed, to maternity services. I think that this would be an entirely suitable subject for an Adjournment debate, Mr Speaker, although, of course, at your discretion.

Alan Brown: In January 2019, the High Court ruled that it was illegal for the Department for Work and Pensions to deduct universal credit payments when people had received two payments within the assessment period. When will the Government make changes to comply with the law?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Her Majesty’s Government always comply with the rule of law. It is a fundamental principle of our constitution.

Fiona Bruce: The Charity Commission has asked abortion provider Marie Stopes, a charity funded largely by public money, why it paid its head  £434,000 last year. May we have a debate on the high levels of executive pay in the charitable sector, which its regulator has described as an issue of public interest?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is indeed a matter of public interest. It is quite extraordinary that a charity should be paying someone so much more than the Prime Minister earns, or, even more shockingly, than Mr Speaker is paid. He stays in his seat for hour after hour in a very diligent way, and I think that if he were paid an hourly rate, he would find that he received less than if he worked at McDonald’s. It is very impressive. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will have to catch your eye in due course, Mr Speaker, before we run out of time.
I share my hon. Friend’s concern. It is a matter for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, but charities must report on the number of staff who are paid more than £60,000 a year in income bands in their annual report and accounts, and the Charity Commission has asked Marie Stopes International to provide  an explanation of its chief executive officer’s quite extraordinary salary.

Jess Phillips: I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) is no longer in the Chamber, but when he was in the Government, he promised that the next comprehensive spending review would provide £90 million for refuge funding. I note that not a single penny piece has been provided in this week’s review, and I now find it difficult to know what to believe when things are said from the Dispatch Box, but will the Leader of the House give me a commitment that that money, which was promised and planned for—and the domestic Abuse Bill—will appear in the Queen’s Speech?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The general principle is that if commitments have been made from the Dispatch Box to spend money, those commitments are incumbent on the Government. They were made, and they continue. I cannot guarantee spending commitments—I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in case the hon. Lady had not noticed—but I share her concern about this important issue, and, if it will satisfy her, I will write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to clarify the position.

Dr Caroline Johnson: My constituents in North Hykeham suffer from dreadful levels of travel congestion. Indeed, several hundred of them responded to a recent survey on the subject which was carried out in my area. The North Hykeham relief road is a key part of solving the problem. May we have a debate on it, please?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I know that my hon. Friend has been an amazingly effective campaigner for better transport in her constituency, and is tireless in it. She probably does not want a debate so much as the money, although a debate may be easier to find than the money.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. We need to wrap up this session by 1.40, so much briefer questions are now needed.

Barry Sheerman: The Leader of the House has a big family, as I have. There is a woman in Tehran who cannot see her husband and cannot see her little daughter. While the House is not sitting, will the Leader of the House lead an all-party delegation to Iran—I would be with him—to see whether we can get that woman released?

John Bercow: I would happily join the Leader of the House on that delegation.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is a matter for the Foreign Secretary. I cannot constitutionally interfere in the Foreign Secretary’s business. However, I completely share the concern. If you were to lead a delegation Mr Speaker, I think that that would be very powerful, but I do hope you will make sure that you get back.

John Bercow: On the principle that Members always speak the truth in the Chamber, I have to assume that the right hon. Gentleman was sincere in what he just said.

Harriett Baldwin: On the Chancellor’s desk since last July has been a shortlist of candidates to succeed Mark Carney as Governor of the Bank of England. Is the Leader of the House aware of the Chancellor’s plans to make a statement on who he has recommended be appointed, so that the Treasury Committee may scrutinise that appointment?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am not aware of the Chancellor’s decision, or the timing of the Chancellor’s decision. However, as a former member of the Treasury Committee, I think it is of the utmost importance that the Committee carries out proper due diligence and scrutiny of appointments, which is hugely beneficial to the good running of the country.

Stephen Doughty: The Leader of the House clearly thinks that we were all born yesterday, but we are not going to fall for trickery over a dissolution motion which has already been sought and which would allow him to crash us out with a no-deal Brexit before 31 October. Why does he not publish the motion now, so that we can see it? Will he state whether it is amendable, and when he plans to table it?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very grateful for that question. The hon. Gentleman has just said that he expects his party to lose the election. Not only has the Labour party passed a surrender Bill, but it has now decided to surrender as a political force. What we have just heard is that Labour Members do not think that they can have an election on 15 October. Why? Because they would lose. If they are so confident that they would win, they can win and cancel Brexit, which is their real purpose, but they do not trust the people.

John Bercow: Sir John Hayes: a sentence.

John Hayes: Barely a life in this place, or beyond in our constituencies—perhaps through family or friends—has not been touched by cancer and its treatment. You, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House will know of  the critical relationship between detection, diagnosis and definitive treatment. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange either a statement or a debate on early diagnosis? It would assuage fear, prevent pain and, hopefully, stop people dying.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is a matter of great importance, and one on which debates can be very useful, because they help to raise awareness. I am sure that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee has heard that request.

Ian Mearns: indicated assent.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I also point out that £34 billion more is to be provided for the national health service? I am sure that some of that will be used to improve cancer treatment services.

Chris Bryant: The Government now think that they may need to invoke the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 after 31 October if we leave without a deal. That Act presumes that Parliament is sitting. Is it not therefore vital that we sit through 31 October, and will the Leader of the House ensure that the motion is published as soon as possible—before 2 o’clock—so that we can all decide what we are going to do on Monday?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There is no question of the House not sitting around 31 October. No one has proposed that.

Huw Merriman: Will the Government back and give time to cross-party calls for the financial services industry to provide, or maintain, at least one free-to-use, 24/7 cashpoint machine for every high street that supports 5,000 residents?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend has presented a ten-minute rule Bill on that subject, and he may want to introduce a similar Bill in the new Session. Alternatively, he could enter the lottery for a private Member’s Bill, which could give him a great deal of time in which to discuss the issue. However, I share his concern about the need to ensure that people have access to cash.

Jamie Stone: The closure of the bank branch in Brora means that there will shortly be only one branch for the whole vast county of Sutherland. May I humbly request a debate, in Government time, about the continuing closure of rural bank branches? I have asked for one before, but, in the lingua franca, omnia tempus habent, sed dum spiro, spero.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is breathing and hoping. That is always extremely beneficial for all hon. Gentlemen and, indeed, all hon. Members—and right hon. ones, too. [Interruption.] I said “hon. Members”. I thought that the word “Members” included everyone, but I apologise if that is not the case.
The hon. Gentleman’s point is important, but I do not think that Government time is likely to be the right arena. Furthermore, I may be, to some extent, partial, as I represent a rural constituency, and I do not think that I should advocate debates in my own cause.

Ross Thomson: During the summer recess, I met the wonderful international volunteers at Simeon Care in my constituency. May we have a debate that would celebrate and recognise the important role of international volunteers in our communities, so that charities such as Simeon can flourish?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I first congratulate my hon. Friend on the amazing charitable work he does, because I know he has great personal concern and is very supportive of his local charities? Again, I think that is suitable for a Backbench Business debate and my hon. Friend knows the form for making applications for them.

Paula Sherriff: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is about time we had a further debate or a statement from the Government regarding the women who have been affected by the state pension age increase? It is okay for the Leader of the House to lie down on the job, but many 1950s-born women are being forced back into work by his Government or face poverty.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I begin by thanking the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for their kind words last week when a protest was proposed outside my house? I was very grateful for that and for their bipartisan approach; I think we all have a concern that Members’ houses should not be affected, and I am genuinely grateful.
The issue the hon. Lady raises is very serious, and I have great sympathy for the WASPI women—it is difficult for them—but the situation we inherited in 2010 in terms of the public finances necessitated it, and although I am not unsympathetic to a debate I very much doubt the decision is going to be changed.

John Bercow: I very much endorse what the Leader of the House said about the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I have made that point myself before, but I take the opportunity to do so again: people who have political disagreements with public figures should not demonstrate in a way that causes real anxiety and fear either to that Member—that public servant—or to members of his or her family; that is intolerable.

Jeremy Lefroy: May we have an urgent statement on UK Government support for the people and Government of the Bahamas given their very difficult situation?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Department for International Development has sent a team of experts to help to deal with the devastation and destruction caused by Hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas. The team is working with the Bahamian Government to assess the situation and provide support. The Department for International Trade, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are monitoring the situation and getting support to those who need it. The Government are doing whatever they can, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue.

Nick Smith: Constituents have contacted me regarding proposals for a breeding kennel in Blaenau Gwent. Many residents have emphasised  the importance of good animal welfare, so may we have a statement from the Government explaining what action is being taken right now so that dogs get the best possible protection in the future?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I know that this issue concerns many people, and the Government have a particular concern for animal welfare. In the new Session of Parliament there may well be time to have a debate on it.

Hugh Gaffney: Royal Mail Group is trying to sell off Parcelforce as a separate business. Communication workers will be ready to strike and take action. With an election possibly coming up, will there be a statement from the Government?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sure that no responsible person would go on strike to interrupt the democratic process of a general election.

Hywel Williams: The Plaid Cymru group will probably vote against the Government on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, but would it not be reasonable for the official Opposition to have the courage of their convictions and do likewise?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: What has happened to the men of Harlech? I thought they were meant to stand steady. Instead, they are running away from an election, which is very disappointing.

Ian Murray: A small family-run restaurant in my constituency was hit with an eye-watering Home Office fine for a minor administrative error in its staffing. I do not want a debate or a statement, but will the Leader of the House please get me a meeting with the Home Secretary so I may ask her directly to resolve this issue and why she has not responded to my letters?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sorry to say that arranging meetings is not the job of the Leader the House. I am here to organise debates and to point people in the right direction for getting parliamentary responses—not, I am sorry to say, to be a diary secretary.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Will the Leader of the House assure me that during Prorogation the Home Secretary will not lay a statutory instrument to make it illegal to enter Kurdish Syria, and that we will continue to be able to support our allies in Kurdistan?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The rules relating to the laying of statutory instruments when the House is sitting are complicated and detailed, and without knowing the precise form of the statutory instrument I will not be able to give any guarantee.

Christine Jardine: We have recently learned that free movement as we know it is to end on 31 October. During the referendum campaign the current Prime Minister made a great deal of decisions not being made without the democratic agreement of this Parliament. May we be assured that, in the current  circumstances, the biggest change to immigration in this country in a decade will not be made without the approval of Parliament?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Well, Mr Speaker, let’s have an election; let’s let the British people decide. Stop running away from it—not you, Mr Speaker, but others in this House. It is so ridiculous to say that the Government are outrageous, undemocratic, shocking and terrible because they are offering an election. An election gives the choice to the British people and validates whatever we do.

Clive Efford: The Leader of the House is very knowledgeable about procedural issues. If the House agrees to an election date of 15 October on Monday, is there any device the Prime Minister could use to move that date to beyond 31 October while the House is dissolved, in order to take the country out with no deal?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The date of the election flows from the date of Dissolution. [Interruption.] No, it is not: the election follows 25 working days from the date of Dissolution, so if we are dissolved on Monday—[Interruption.] But the process for that—[Interruption.] No, that is a mistake: it is not a minimum once the Dissolution day is set; it is 25 working days from Dissolution.

Chris Bryant: It is the other way around.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: No, what the hon. Gentleman is confusing is when the day of Dissolution is set, and that is done by Royal Proclamation.
I can assure the House that the date will be set and the date will be stuck to. I think everybody in this House wants to see this issue settled; it is the one thing we have agreement about. The best way to settle it is through a general election—and a general election before 31 October.

Wes Streeting: Does the Leader of the House not understand that such is the lack of trust in this Government because of their behaviour that we simply will not vote for a general election unless and until an extension of article 50 has been secured, guaranteeing that this country cannot be dragged out with no deal? That is the condition.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The condition seems to change, because the condition was that the legislation was passed.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: And enacted.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: And enacted; given Royal Assent. [Interruption.] Royal Assent is the point at which it is enacted—it is when it becomes an Act. If that is the law of the land, that will be the law of the land, and if Members think it through they will realise that the Government would not want an election after that law had taken effect and we had had to ask for an extension. The last thing this Government want to do is ask for an extension.

Wes Streeting: But we do.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Then win an election. That is the easy part of it; if Labour Members really have confidence in what they say, go for an election. That is the obvious point. The weasel wording to try to pretend they want  an election, but they do not want an election, and they are not going to vote for one because we might leave is all about stopping Brexit by people who do not trust their own voters.

Jim Shannon: In July of this year there were a number of attacks on Christian villages in Plateau state, Nigeria, with some 75 houses burned and three Christians killed—a father and his seven-year-old son and the elder of a church were brutally beheaded. We had a debate in the Chamber some six weeks ago in which we discussed the persecution of Christians and the Truro report. May we have an update on where we are, because the murder of Christians is continuing across the world?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is a very serious issue, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern regarding the persecution of Christians across the world. We should do whatever we can—indeed, the Government are doing what they can—to help them. I believe the hon. Gentleman met my predecessor quite recently to discuss freedom of religion and belief, and I know he is in regular communication with the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion or belief at the Foreign Office. These incidents are dreadful and we must do everything we can to stop them. I am happy to take this matter up further if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me.

Alison Thewliss: There were 1,187 drug-related deaths in Scotland last year, but the Home Office has yet to dispatch a Minister to the drugs summit that the Scottish Government wish to hold. Why?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There is an issue about exactly where power and authority lie and what parts are devolved and what parts are not devolved. I will happily take the matter up with the Home Office for the hon. Lady, and I will send a reply when I get a response.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Putting aside the vested interests of so many of the Government’s Members, relatives and chums in the other place, and in the light of the work of the noble Lords last night, may we have a debate in Government time on the role of the upper Chamber?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady may recall that not so many years ago we had a Second Reading debate for a couple of days on the role of the upper Chamber in an attempt to reform it, but it did not get very far. The problem with those debates is that so many people have so many different ideas that nobody can come to a conclusion about what ought to be done, so I would suggest that if people want such a debate they have a word with the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).

Justin Madders: Last week, 50 new towns were added to the future high streets fund. Ellesmere Port was not one of them, which was hugely disappointing, but then I saw that the majority of successful bids were from Conservative constituencies. May we have a statement, please, from the relevant Minister to assure us that this is not a political fix ahead of a snap general election?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Oh, of course it is not a political fix! No Government would ever behave like that.

Liz Twist: On Tuesday this week, the Office for National Statistics produced the suicide data for 2018, which showed an increase of 686 suicides over the previous year’s figure. Suicide is preventable, not inevitable, so may we have a debate in Government time as soon as possible on the figures and what we can do to reduce deaths by suicide?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is obviously an important and worrying issue, and one where any policy initiatives that can be made to help to reduce the suicide rate ought to be made, but I think it is a suitable matter for the Backbench Business Committee.

Martin Whitfield: My constituent Erin Campbell, who is our member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, runs the Keep in Mind mental health campaign to reduce the stigma of young people’s mental health and ask them to talk about it. If there is space next week, may we have a debate on the role of young people helping their own mental health through discussion and conversation?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think that fitting it in next week might prove a little difficult.

Thangam Debbonaire: Will the Leader of the House please apologise to the doctor whom he compared an hour ago to another now disgraced former doctor whose actions and misinformation led to the loss of this country’s herd immunity to measles earlier this year?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: No, I will reiterate it because I think this doctor’s behaviour was disgraceful. To scaremonger and say that people are going to die because of Brexit is thoroughly irresponsible and unbefitting to his role.

Diana R. Johnson: The Leader of the House is a stickler for good manners, except when it comes to members of the medical profession. I wonder whether he can help me. I wrote to the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) 76 days ago about the contaminated blood scandal. The fact is that 19 people have died in those 76 days without receiving any compensation. Can the Leader of the House assist me in getting a response from the right hon. Gentleman, which I can then pass on to everyone who has been affected by the scandal?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: If the hon. Lady sends me a copy of her letter I will of course chase it up, but 76 days ago my right hon. Friend was not yet Prime Minister. However, if she sends it to me, I absolutely promise I will take it up and try to get an answer as soon as possible.

Carol Monaghan: Will the Leader of the House confirm whether it is a Government tactic to cause reputational damage to experts such as Dr David Nicholl, who dared to challenge the Government and raise legitimate concerns about the impact of no deal?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Frankly, I think when people start saying that people are going to die because of Brexit, their reputations are destroyed by themselves.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House and to colleagues for their brevity.

POINT OF ORDER

Margaret Greenwood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government introduced a negative statutory instrument just three days before the summer recess for a pilot of managed migration to universal credit and payments to severely disabled people who lost out in transferring to it. The Secretary of State said that the Government had been advised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to use a negative SI, but my office has since been informed that the Committee had not reported on the instrument in question, and that no such advice had therefore been given. Mr Speaker, will you please advise on how she could set the record straight?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for her courtesy in giving me notice of her intention to raise it. Ministers are, of course, responsible for the accuracy of their answers in the House, and I am sure that the points made by the hon. Lady will have been noted on the Treasury Bench. It is open to the Secretary of State to correct the record if she thinks that that is the appropriate course of action. Moreover, I think there is a salience about this, and I understand that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has been alerted to the statement made by the Secretary of State and will be writing to the Department about this matter. In the light of that, I think we have to await the sequence of events, and people must draw the appropriate conclusions, both from what I have said and more widely.

Clean Growth: Emissions Reduction Targets

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Select Committee statement

John Bercow: We now come to the Select Committee statement. Mr Norman Lamb will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, the occupant of the Chair will call hon. or right hon. Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee to respond to these in turn. Members as per usual can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Those on the Front Bench may take part in questioning. I now call the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, who I regret to say I am wrongly advised is Norman Lamb. The Chair of the Science and Technology Committee is, of course, Sir Norman Lamb.

Norman Lamb: You are very kind, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a statement following the publication by my Committee, the Science and Technology Committee, of our report last month, “Clean growth: Technologies for meeting emissions reduction targets”. These technologies are essential to confront the climate emergency that we face.
I start by thanking the more than 80 organisations and individuals who provided us with written evidence and the 27 individuals who gave evidence. I would also like to thank my fellow Committee members, many of whom are here today. It has been an enormous pleasure working with hon. Members from across the House and also with the outstanding staff on our Committee. I particularly want to thank the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who took a lead on this inquiry. This is an evidence-based report, and it would not have been possible without the input of the many organisations and individuals who have given evidence to us.
This summer, the UK had its hottest day on record in July and the hottest August bank holiday on record. This pattern was repeated across Europe. Weather is always variable, but trends in global climate are becoming clear. Global temperatures are rising and extreme weather is becoming more extreme and more common. To avert a climate catastrophe, the United Nations has agreed to keep global warming to within 2% of pre-industrial levels and to aim to keep it within 1.5° C. The Committee on Climate Change has determined that the UK’s contribution to this target should be to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The Government rightly adopted this target by amending the Climate Change Act 2008, a move that was widely supported in this House and recognised by the Committee, but it will take more than targets to achieve this ambition.
The UK can point to some historical success in cutting emissions. Since 2000, the UK has achieved greater decarbonisation than any other country in the G20, but we must look to what is needed going forward, not dwell on past successes. We need to compare ourselves  not with other countries but with what we need to do to restrict global warming. On these measures, we risk falling short. The Committee on Climate Change has warned that the UK is not on track even to meet its fourth and fifth carbon budgets, which are interim targets designed to achieve only 80% decarbonisation by 2050 and not the net zero target that is now legally binding. That is why my Committee launched our inquiry to examine what the Government should be doing to put us on track.
The first thing we identified were 10 key areas in which Government policy to support the implementation of low carbon technology has been delayed, cut back or undermined. For example, the plug-in grant for low emission cars has been scaled back and the feed-in tariff for low carbon power generation has been closed. We have witnessed a dramatic fall in the number of new solar installations, for example, as a result. There has been no new policy to encourage those who can afford it to improve the energy efficiency of their homes—an absolutely essential ambition to achieve net zero. Despite a consultation on the topic in 2017, no action has followed since. Following the cancellation of the zero carbon homes policy in 2015, the Government said that they would consult on changes to building regulations in 2019 to improve energy efficiency, but no consultation has been launched, so we are building new homes that we will have to retrofit in order to achieve net zero. Fuel duty has been frozen for nine years in a row, while bus and train fares have been allowed to increase every year over the same period. There are even rumours that the Chancellor intends to cut fuel duty in the Budget. I urge him to consider improving public transport and incentivising people to use it instead.
What should the Government be doing? Much of the media coverage focused on just one aspect of our report—the future of car ownership—but I urge colleagues across the House to carefully consider all my Committee’s proposals for change. Some key priorities include the fact that transport emissions have barely changed since 2012, with transport now bring the heaviest-emitting sector of the UK economy. Indeed, emissions from new cars appear to be going up. In the near term, the Government should be using vehicle excise duty to encourage the purchase of lower-emitting models and working to make electric vehicle charging points much more widely available and interoperable. In the longer term, the Government should bring their proposed ban on sales of new conventional cars and vans forward to 2035 at the latest, and they should also move towards a future transport system that no longer requires widespread car ownership. Incidentally, this is not an imposition on people not to have cars, but there needs to be a national discussion about what our future transport system will look like and how we can get about without mass car ownership
The Government must also develop a strategy for decarbonising heating—absolutely vital to achieving net zero—and a mix of different low carbon heating technologies is probably required. Large-scale trials of different technologies, such as hydrogen and heat pumps and heat networks, are needed now to gather evidence for future decisions. Whatever technologies are used, there will be massive benefits from having energy efficient homes. The cost of housing and of heating our homes will reduce substantially if we make them more efficient.  The Government must ensure that regulations deliver new buildings ready for a net zero future. They should also learn from past policies to encourage homeowners to improve energy efficiency in their existing homes. My Committee recommended that the Government should consider amending stamp duty to provide the incentive and introduce a “help to improve” scheme, like Help to Buy, in order to help provide the finance for such improvements.
Power generation has already achieved impressive decarbonisation, but that must continue. However, the deployment of onshore wind and large-scale solar power has fallen drastically since 2015 as a result of planning policy and their exclusion from financial support frameworks. The Government must ensure that there is strong policy support for building new onshore wind power and large-scale solar power projects and repowering existing ones where there are projected cost savings for consumers over the long term and local support. Decisions are also needed on future funding mechanisms for nuclear power and the careful monitoring of the new smart export guarantee for renewable generation, which must provide a proper incentive.
To meet the Government’s original 2050 target, reaching net zero emissions will also require the active removal of significantly more greenhouse gas from the atmosphere than envisaged in any of the previous illustrative pathways. The step change required will necessitate a significant increase in current support for greenhouse gas removal technologies, and the Government should increase funding for their research, development and demonstration, ensuring that they are seizing currently available opportunities for greenhouse gas removal.
Carbon capture, usage and storage has been widely identified as a key technology for decarbonisation in several sectors. The Government must provide greater clarity on the details of its CCUS action plan and learn from previous carbon capture projects to ensure that a sufficient number of them, of sufficient scale, are undertaken and that the knowledge gained from publicly funded work is publicly accessible. The scale of the challenge ahead should not be underestimated, nor should the imperative of succeeding in it. Our report makes a wide range of recommendations, and I urge the Government to act on all our recommendations.
Finally, it is disturbing and worrying that this is one of the big challenges we face as a society, and yet the Brexit quagmire that we are in is distracting the attention that this Parliament should be giving to how we confront this enormous existential threat. In many ways, it is sad and rather depressing that not enough people are in the Chamber today to debate such an important issue. At some point soon, this Parliament needs to get back to focusing on such issues, which are critical to the futures of our planet and our society.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: I am spoilt for choice. I call Sarah Newton.

Sarah Newton: As both a former member of the Science and Technology Committee and a member of the Conservative Environment Network, I very much welcome this report. Does my right hon. Friend agree that reducing emissions from people heating  their homes is not only good for our climate change targets, but will reduce costs for people and enable us to end the scourge of fuel poverty?

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely central point that is a real win-win. We can achieve the essential decarbonisation of our economy by confronting the problem of how we heat our buildings, particularly our homes, but we can also achieve affordable housing. We often talk about affordable housing and the vital need to increase access to it, but housing is not affordable unless energy is cheap. We have the potential to minimise and, indeed, to eradicate the cost of energy in our homes if only we were to follow the objectives set out in this report.

Alan Whitehead: I warmly welcome this report and congratulate the Chair of the Committee and its members on the assiduity with which they have gone about their business and on the comprehensive and compelling report that they have produced as a result. Following the House’s decision to change the target for greenhouse gas removal from 80% by 2050 to net zero by 2050, it is clear that several of the actions that had previously been proposed, which were based on the carbon budgets and Government ambition relating to the 80% target, would have to be changed. Did the Committee take any evidence on the extent to which documents such as the Government’s clean growth plan should be amended or extended as a result of the change of target?

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that contribution. It is fair to say that the legislating for net zero came towards the end of our inquiry, so much of the evidence was received before that, but the consensus was clear that we need to significantly up the ambition of the policies that are in place in order to deliver net zero or, indeed, even to deliver the previous target of 80%. We not only have to will the end, but we have to will the means to get there.

Vicky Ford: As a member of the Committee, I thank our Chairman, all the staff and all the people who gave evidence on this incredibly detailed and important report. I completely agree with him that not enough time is being devoted in this place to climate change, which is our biggest challenge.
It is fantastic news that we set that net zero target, but does the Chairman agree that, when targets are at risk of not being met, action needs to be taken to address it? It is important to recognise that the Government have taken action in some of these areas, such as saying no fossil fuel heating in new homes by 2025. We have seen extra electric vehicle charging points pop up in Chelmsford and in other parts of the country, and some of our recommendations are already in place.
The widespread use of personal vehicles is cause for concern. Does the Chairman agree that the report is not saying that everybody should no longer be allowed to own a car—we know that cars and vehicles are important, especially in rural areas and in many careers—but is pointing out that we need investment over the decades ahead to give people alternatives? Does he agree that what happened to the national grid this summer is a real  wake-up call on the investment that is needed in this area? That investment needs to come from public and private sources.
Does the Chairman agree that carbon capture is vital not only to innovation but to protecting areas in the UK, such as our peat bogs, and overseas, like in the Amazon rainforest? Finally, does he agree that we will address this only when we work together with other countries and that next year’s global climate change conference, which is possibly coming to Britain, is a vital time for our future?

Norman Lamb: First, I thank my hon. Friend for all her work on the Committee during my time as Chair. This is probably my last appearance in the Chamber as Chair of the Committee or, indeed, as the Member of Parliament for North Norfolk, and it has been an enormous pleasure to work with her and other Committee members.
I agree with all my hon. Friend’s questions. We are right to applaud the Government for setting the 2050 target in legislation but, as she says, to maintain public trust and to confront this existential challenge, we now have to get the measures in place to deliver on the target.

Carol Monaghan: It is a pleasure to have been part of the Committee in drawing up this report, which is one of our most important reports over the last few years. Of course we need to take bold, ambitious steps. We cannot continue living our lives as we currently are, and we all need to look at what we are doing. With these bold steps, we also need to look at the bold, retrograde steps that have been taken, such as cutting offshore wind subsidies and removing feed-in tariffs. We could reverse those steps instantly, which would help to change the landscape of our energy use.
We all love our cars, and many journeys are currently not possible without them, but I recently got rid of my car after deciding to rethink my relationship with it. I live in a city, so that is possible, but it is more difficult in rural areas. Does the Chairman agree that we need to start thinking about whether our cars are necessary and whether our journeys could be taken another way, such as by bike, by walking or by public transport? Finally, will he commend the Scottish Government for our commitment to renewable energy? The majority of our electricity generation is from renewable sources, and we want to move that to 100%.

Norman Lamb: I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent work on the Committee, and it has been a pleasure working with her. I do think the Scottish Government have taken important steps in this context.
My hon. Friend mentions the areas in which policy has either stalled or fallen back, on which the report is clear. I pick out the zero-carbon homes standard, which was supposed to come in from 2015 but was abandoned, and the ludicrous situation—Lord Deben made this point in his evidence as chair of the Committee on Climate Change—in which we are building new homes that do not meet the standard we need to achieve and so will have to be retrofitted. How ridiculous and inefficient is that?
I also pick out the Government’s decision effectively to end new onshore wind in England, although obviously not in Scotland, where it is devolved. There are enormous  opportunities to deliver cheaper energy to our citizens if we permit onshore wind, which is widely supported by the public provided we avoid areas with important and sensitive landscape.

Bill Grant: I am also a member of the Science and Technology Committee, and it has been a pleasure to serve under the right hon. Gentleman’s chairmanship for the last two years. I am proud to have served with him over that time, and I wish him all the best for the future, wherever it takes him.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will share my concern that road vehicle emissions have either stagnated or increased somewhat. Does he agree there is a role for the Department for Transport in incentivising migration to electric cars and for making progress on the use of hydrogen propulsion for large goods vehicles on our roads today?

Norman Lamb: I totally agree. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind comments, and I thank him for his excellent contributions to the Committee and for always being prompt and reliable. He has the prize for being the most reliable member of all.
I very much agree on the need to incentivise people to shift to ultra low emissions vehicles. In a sense, there is a personal story here, because I am due to take delivery of an electric car.

Bill Grant: Show off.

Norman Lamb: Absolutely, but I am conscious that, financially, it is beyond most people’s reach, so we have to find ways of making it affordable. By incentivising the purchase, we will start to bring down prices so that they become competitive. Alongside that, we need the charging points that provide for their day-to-day use.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This is meant to be a 20-minute debate. We have now passed 20 minutes and we have quite a lot to get through, so if we could all speed up—I want to make sure everyone gets in.

Chi Onwurah: I start by congratulating the Chair and all the members of the Select Committee on this excellent report, particularly its emphasis on the need to take action to address the huge, existential threat that climate change presents and the role that technology can play. Does he agree that such technologies, given the right framework, could also create hundreds of thousands of good high-wage, high-skill and high-productivity jobs and that the right Government, with the right investment programme, would see the decarbonisation of our economy as an opportunity to transform our economic and manufacturing base, creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs and sharing prosperity around the country in the process?

Norman Lamb: I thank the hon. Lady for making that important point. She is right that we can generate economic growth in our country by greening our economy, but we also have massive export opportunities. We  have the opportunity to assist the developing world in  decarbonising its economies and in growing in a way that does not damage the planet. Unfortunately, through our development assistance, we are still not always consistent in that approach.

David Drew: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for what he has done and for this excellent report, and I associate myself completely with his initial remarks.
I understand that the previous Prime Minister took very seriously how we roll out electric charging points, but sadly it was right at the end of her tenure. Is the Chair any clearer on the Government’s strategy to increase the number of charging points?

Norman Lamb: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments, and it is always a pleasure to see him as he comes and goes from this place over many years. He is right to raise this issue, and there is not yet clarity on the roll-out of charging points. Other countries, such as Norway, are well ahead of us in achieving that. In order to encourage people to buy electric, we have to assure them that they will be able to recharge without difficulty.

Jamie Stone: I am not a member of the Committee but, for the record, I would also like to extend my personal thanks to my right hon. Friend for all his kindness over the short years I have been here. I am particularly interested in his statement on offshore renewable energy, which is a success story in my constituency. What consideration did the Committee give to the development of further sites around the British Isles where this might be appropriate?

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. There is clearly an enormous opportunity to help decarbonise our electricity generation capacity in this country. It is clear from the evidence we received that there is great opportunity to increase offshore wind capacity around our shores.

Martin Whitfield: On a personal note, I thank my right hon. Friend for his chairmanship, guidance and education during my short time on the Science and Technology Committee. It has been a great pleasure to serve under his chairmanship.
The report is hugely important and young people have managed to get climate change back on the front pages. Is it not the case that there is no single magic bullet to perfect what we need, but that the Government and all those involved must look at all the answers holistically and address all our suggestions and recommendations so that we can honour our young people for putting climate change back where it belongs?

Norman Lamb: I thank my friend for his massive contribution—when he has not been dragged away by HS2. It has been a great pleasure to work with him. He is right: this requires action on all fronts. There is a particular need to focus on the heating of buildings and on transport. We have made very little progress on those matters, and urgent progress is essential. Unless we attack where we put carbon into the atmosphere on  all fronts, we will fail to meet the targets, and fail  future generations.

Matt Western: I also commend the right hon. Gentleman for his report and congratulate him on his determinedness on the subject, for which I share his passion. Does he share my frustration that for so many years—since 2010—we have, through lack of tighter regulation, allowed housing to be built without energy efficiency or renewable energy provision in the regulatory framework? Including such provision would have transformed some of our communities. On the transport side, we need to invest more heavily in cycle routes and electric bicycles, which would transform our urban movement.

Norman Lamb: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. More than a decade ago, a German teacher came to stay with us. He was building a zero carbon home in Germany with a ground source heat pump. That was more than a decade ago, yet we have made snail’s pace progress in this country on alternative ways of heating our homes. The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the need to find ways of avoiding having to use cars. Cycling and walking are essential and our urban areas in particular must be designed and adapted in such a way as to facilitate that.

Darren Jones: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out the importance of the report, not just to tackling climate change, but to bringing together the two questions of technology and climate change in order to achieve our net zero emissions. It was my privilege to lead on this in the Science and Technology Committee. Does he agree that the evidence across all policy areas in the report concluded that much stronger leadership was required from central Government—from the Prime Minister, with a cross-departmental and economy-wide mission—to meet the net zero target emissions? For whoever is on the Treasury Bench in the months and years ahead, the report provides an excellent evidence-based agenda of items that should be prioritised in achieving those targets.
I put on record my tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his excellent leadership of the Committee, which has been recognised not just by Members but by the science and technology community outside the House.

Norman Lamb: That is really kind. It has been an enormous pleasure working with the hon. Gentleman and I thank him for taking a lead role in this vital report. I entirely agree with his comments. The Prime Minister has said that he wants the Government to be the greenest ever. We have heard that before, but there now must be substance to back up that statement. That requires key policies that provide the incentives and the regulatory framework to deliver that essential target by 2050.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I also wish you well? The tributes, which have come from all sides, show what a great man you are. We wish you well in your retirement. I am not quite sure that it is retirement, but we wish you well in whatever future venture you undertake.

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

UK SHARED PROSPERITY FUND

Drew Hendry: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern that the Government is more than half a year behind its schedule to provide details of post-2020 funding through a UK Shared Prosperity Fund; supports the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recommendation that the Fund should at the very least match the £2.4 billion per year currently allocated through the EU structural funds; and calls on the Government to ensure that full details of the fund are published with urgency, that the devolved settlement is respected and that there is no reduction in the levels of funding to devolved governments or their role in distributing funds.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us the opportunity to bring this matter to the Chamber today. Scottish communities stand to lose millions of pounds from Brexit. Communities, charities and other organisations have been waiting for years to find out what funding will be available. There is also a threat to devolution. Long-term planning has been abandoned to Brexit.
We need clarity about the details of the so-called shared prosperity fund. We need to know whether the devolution settlement will be protected. Currently, until 2020, communities and charities can access funding worth £2.4 billion a year. Work by the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions—the CPMR—shows that, for 2021-27, the UK would have received €13 billion in regional development funding. For Scotland, failure to replace that would mean a loss of €840 million. For the highlands and islands alone, that would be €130 million. It is therefore vital that that money is replaced.
That funding has underpinned further education, youth employment, smart cities, connectivity for islands and communities, small and medium-sized enterprises, apprenticeships, regeneration, innovation, productivity, social inclusion and much more. In Scotland, it has supported projects and development in West Lothian, the Orkney isles, Ayrshire, Fife, Argyll and Bute, Midlothian, East Lothian, Perth and Kinross, Aberdeenshire, West Dunbartonshire, Stirling, Western Isles, Inverclyde, Clackmannanshire, Moray, Shetland, Edinburgh, Dumfries and Galloway, Renfrewshire, Glasgow, Dundee and more.
In the highlands and islands, we would be hard pushed to find any town or village, let alone our city of Inverness, that has not had investment since we joined the European Community in the 1970s. Indeed, two specific and unavoidable icons stand testament to that. The Kessock bridge was built through Europe before devolution because Westminster ignored the highlands for decades.

Jamie Stone: When the hon. Gentleman and I drive around the highlands we cannot help but notice the signs with the stars on them on new bits of road that say that the development was funded by the EU. Without that funding, those roads would probably not have been built and transport across our vast constituencies would have been difficult for our constituents. Replacing the funding is essential. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister  has met me several times, tried to do his level best and knows the area, I am bound to say that we seem no further forward, which my constituents find not just frustrating but deeply worrying.

Drew Hendry: It is absolutely true that the money has had a massive impact on the infrastructure of the highlands and it must be replaced.

Albert Owen: This is an important debate and I know that the Minister has worked hard on the matter and been very good with Members. The hon. Gentleman talks about peripheral areas, and west Wales and the valleys have particularly benefited. However, small businesses tell me that they need to plan. They need some indication of what is happening. We have just talked about science and technology. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that research and development also require planning? Brexit has taken the Government’s eye off the ball, but we need some answers now.

Drew Hendry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments and I can confirm that I will underline those very points later in my speech.

Jake Berry: rose—

Clive Betts: Here comes the money.

Jake Berry: Show me the money.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) has repeatedly referred to “EU money”. I hope he will acknowledge that it is not the EU’s money but British taxpayers’ money and that he will reflect on the fact that, in 2018, we paid £13.2 billion into the EU and they returned £4.2 billion to this country.

Drew Hendry: I will reflect on the fact that if it had not been for EU funding—that is what I am talking about: funding that is generated out of EU schemes—the highlands and islands, as others have pointed out, would have been ignored by Westminster.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Drew Hendry: I will give way one last time, then I must make progress.

Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the difference between the European Union and the Government here in Westminster is that the European Union has a regional policy to counteract the effects of poverty, unlike this Government?

Drew Hendry: Yes—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment.
Before I took those interventions, I was talking about the two icons, one of them being the Kessock bridge, which I will not go into now. It is there for everybody to see and is a monument to the fact that Europe has paid attention to the regions that need assistance. The other icon is the University of the Highlands and Islands. EU funding enables research capacity, new facilities and  equipment and expert researchers, and it has enabled doctoral and post-doctoral students to support priority sectors such as life sciences, marine science, aquaculture, archaeology, Gaelic and the creative economy—all coming together to make the highlands the vibrant place it is. The University of the Highlands and Islands receives the largest Scottish grant of €7.17 million, out of €68.6 million throughout Scotland. The view of the University of the Highlands and Islands is that Brexit will reduce prospects in those areas.
Erasmus has enabled student and staff exchanges for more than 30 years. International collaboration and EU engagement are at the heart of the University of the Highlands and Islands, and have been since its inception. It was helped by the EU to achieve university status and title in 2011, and is a vital contributor to economic growth. More than £250 million of investment has been levered into the UHI through structural funding. Some 25% of the university’s non-teaching “other” income has come from the EU. If we were remaining in the EU, there would be much more potential for growth through the EU 2020-27 programmes.
Adam Haxell of MillionPlus, the Association for Modern Universities, said to me:
“On UHI itself, it is important to emphasis what a remarkable success story it has been. The idea of having a university that covered this area in the early 1990s seemed totally unrealistic to many, and it is thanks to the determination and perseverance of those involved combined with the spread of funds they were able to draw down on, namely European funding streams, that made it happen. Today, the university stands as a pillar of the regional economy of the Highlands and Islands and an important element of the modern social fabric. The range of courses that are offered through this institution, some of which relate directly to the regional culture and heritage, combine to create a unique local offer that reflects the needs and ambitions of local residents. Moreover, in the last Research Excellence Framework, 69% of research at the institution was deemed world-leading or internationally excellent. For an institution that only gained university title in 2011, this is a phenomenal trajectory and could not have happened without the support it got.”
He went on to say that
“Kate Louise McCulough has written on the historic framing of the ‘Highland problem’ in Scottish and UK public policy and how European funds played a critical role in its transformation from the 1980s to become ‘…an example of what a successful peripheral region looks like’.”

Kirstene Hair: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Drew Hendry: I will not; I am going to make some progress, as I indicated. There is very limited time.
Communities and charities have used European funding to benefit people, especially the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. The Shaw Trust says:
“Without ESF—
European social fund—
“funding, Shaw Trust would not have been able to support 70,000 disabled people”
and
“offenders…to gain new skills, improve their wellbeing and find work”.
Equally Ours—formerly the Equality and Diversity Forum—says that EU funding has provided vital, dedicated support to individuals experiencing disadvantage, discrimination and abuse, as well as the voluntary and community organisations that support them. It says  that the continuing lack of lack of consultation on the UK shared prosperity fund is creating significant uncertainty for communities, organisations and disadvantaged people.
Communities and charities have now been waiting for years to find out what funding will be available post Brexit, yet so far there is nothing from the UK Government, other than a name, that the Union flag will be on it and that it will be administered by the Minister for local government in England. That is in spite of a recognition of how valuable the funds have been and a commitment made to replace them. The UK shared prosperity fund was promised by the Tories in their 2017 manifesto. They said that it would
“reduce inequalities…across our four nations.”
They said it would be “cheap to administer” and “low in bureaucracy”. Without a like-for-like replacement, inequalities will increase, and that is what we are now looking at. The Tories were right in the second part of what they said: the fund is cheap and there is no bureaucracy—because it does not exist.
The Commons Library notes that many considerations are required for the fund, including priorities, objectives, amounts of money, allocation, method of model, length of planning and who administers funds. The latter role currently rests with the devolved Governments. All the organisations and charities that have contacted me agree with the conclusions of the all-party group on post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas, which in turn received many submissions, including from the Welsh Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Scottish local authorities directly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and numerous educational and voluntary bodies. They all said, first, that the fund’s budget must be no less in real terms than the EU and UK funding streams it replaces, and, secondly, that the devolved nations’ share should not be reduced and that it should remain a devolved matter.
The UK Government must now respect the devolution settlement and UK Ministers should commit to work with all the devolved Administrations to agree funding arrangements that make sense for all the nations of the UK. As I have said, currently the biggest piece of concrete information we have is a written statement from July 2018 that largely consists of a future planning framework for England, with, as mentioned, the English communities Minister, who is judged on English community improvement, in charge of UK funding distribution.
The groups and communities aided by the funds do not believe that Westminster knows best how to act in the interests of the parts of Scotland that need the most support. They do not want to see a Westminster power grab. There have been no assurances about devolved powers, despite numerous questions raised in the House. In mid-November last year we were promised that a consultation on the UK shared prosperity fund would be published before the end of that year, but there is still nothing. All the while, the hard-working volunteers, charities and communities face rising concerns about the future of the people they selflessly serve, and about their own futures. They need more than the new Secretary of State for Scotland saying that he will put Union flags on all projects, with the attendant suggestion of misplaced priorities and a desire to interfere with devolution by insisting on UK Government agreement on all UK shared prosperity funding. It is unacceptable.
The Scottish Government are determined to defend and maintain the benefits that EU funding has given them, to defend the organisations I mentioned, and to defend their hard-won fiscal responsibility. How will the shared prosperity fund ensure the flexibility, which currently exists with EU funding, to allow organisations to fund different policy areas, from biotech to tourism and education? How will the new fund enable strategic planning within organisations over the longer term, as EU funding has enabled? Will the Minister guarantee like-for-like funding for the €13 billion that would have come from the EU? Will he guarantee no detriment to the Scottish Government as a result of Brexit? Will he commit today to respecting the devolution settlement? If he cannot do those things—if he cannot make those commitments—he should work with his Government to revoke article 50, so that the money is not lost to our communities. If he is not able to do that, all it will do is show the people of Scotland that they need to make a new choice about their future—to be an independent country, taking their own seat in Europe.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I want to make sure that everybody gets in and that we start the next debate on time, so Members will have up to six minutes. Please be aware of that.

Sarah Newton: It is a huge privilege to stand in the House today. We have a special word in the Cornish language: hireth. There really is no direct translation into English, but it is about a feeling that comes from being Cornish. It derives from our inspirational natural environment and from our history and culture.
As someone whose family has lived and worked in my constituency for generations, it has been a huge privilege to represent my home town. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, just before you leave the Chamber, let me say that you were in the Chair when I made my maiden speech. As the general election is just around the corner, this may well be my last speech in this House, and it will be a speech standing up for the people of Cornwall who sent me here. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for standing and listening to me say that.
There is no doubt in my mind that the funding that Cornwall has received via the European funds has been absolutely essential. Despite the many natural wonders of Cornwall, and the hugely talented, creative and resourceful people, the fact remains that we are still the poorest region in England. There is no doubt that a huge amount of progress is being made. In no small part, that is down to the funding that we have received via the European Union. Let me explain why.
Just before the summer recess, colleagues from across the House, including my Cornish colleagues and I, supported by 14 first tier local authorities, launched a report called “Britain’s Leading Edge”, which demonstrates beyond doubt that the English regions that do not have a major city have been historically underfunded and that there is a bias in the system of the allocation of public money towards the English regions that do have cities. I am delighted that the Government have responded positively to the report and that we have seen some real  progress in some of the funding formulae used to allocate funding, particularly in the NHS and the recent moves on the national funding formula for education. However, the models that the Treasury uses in the allocation  of funds for transport and economic development are systematically biased against regional peripheral maritime regions such as Cornwall.
This is where the European funding that Cornwall has received comes in. It has enabled us to put that money on the table in our negotiations with the Treasury when we are securing vital investment for our infrastructure, such as roads, rail, superfast broadband and education. It is vital for future progress that anyone and everyone who represents Cornwall and the regions of the UK that do not have major cities ensures that there is dedicated funding to close those gaps and to make the progress we want.
Cornwall, like all these regions, has huge potential and capabilities that need to be unleashed. We want to play our full part in our nation. We do not want to be the poorest region. We certainly have the talent and the capability to deliver, particularly on some of the key challenges and opportunities our country faces. I think we can all agree that there is no greater challenge than facing up to climate change and environmental degradation, and our regions have the solutions; we produce the nation’s food as well as vast sources of renewable energy. We have talented people, great businesses and wonderful universities. With dedicated funding, we are more than able to meet the challenge of closing the gap. I know that the Government want to ensure that no one and no region in our country is left behind, and dedicated replacement funding for the EU funding will enable us to ensure that.

Clive Betts: I wish the hon. Lady all the best for the future, as she has indicated that she will not be in this place after the election.
It is important that areas such as Cornwall get the continuation of the funding they have had in the past when we are outside the EU. But there are other areas such as South Yorkshire, which are not currently not objective 1 areas but which would get objective 1 funding in the future if we were still in the EU. It is important that that is recognised in any future settlement, so that areas such as South Yorkshire get the proper funding as well.

Sarah Newton: Let me put this beyond doubt; I am just being respectful of the fact that no one has a right to a seat on these Benches. If we have a general election, I do not make any assumption about whether I will be returned to this place, but I absolutely plan and hope that the general election does send me back to this place. Far too many people in this House are complacent and see themselves automatically being re-elected. In a forthcoming general election, I know that I will have to go out and earn my right to represent my constituents here. [Interruption.] I appreciate that Madam Deputy Speaker would like me to complete my speech, which I am very happy to do.
I would like Ministers to make an unequivocal commitment in our manifesto for the forthcoming general election that Cornwall will receive, pound for pound, what it would have received had we stayed in the European Union, so that we can unleash the huge potential that we can deliver to our great nation.

Hywel Williams: European funding has been hugely important to Wales: particularly to my area of north Wales, but also to mid-Wales and other areas. I echo the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry): many of us are frustrated by the lack of information—any information at all, for that matter—about how the shared prosperity fund will operate. The delay in the consultation is just symptomatic of the lack of care that the Government have shown towards the European funding that we have already had and towards what will happen in future, suggesting that regional funding is a low priority for this Government.
This issue is incredibly important in Wales, because we get a large amount of European funding. In fact, we get four and a half times more per head from the European Union in funding than any other nation or region in the UK. Of course, this was not always the case. Some people here will recall that the maps were redrawn to delineate west Wales and the valleys as the area that would get funding. These maps are called nomenclature of territorial units for statistics maps—ludicrously known as NUTS maps, as that is the acronym. The previous NUTS map for Wales put poor west Wales, where I live, in with the rather more prosperous north-east Wales, and south-west Wales in with the rather more prosperous Cardiff area. When the map was redrawn, suddenly we were allocated funding under the European Union’s regional policy, showing the value of that policy and also that a degree of cleverness is required in acquiring that funding, which we eventually showed.
Wales—particularly my area—is economically on a par with the former communist parts of eastern Europe, Portugal and southern Spain. That is not something that we celebrate, of course, although it does bring us in a certain amount of funding. Rather, it is the consequence of decades of marginalisation, neglect and mismanagement by Westminster. Let me echo the points made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. At the very least, can we have an assurance from the Minister that not a penny less will come to Wales under this fund as compared with under European funding?

Bob Stewart: My reading is that, actually, the funding will continue. It will just not come from Europe; it will come from London—at least in the immediate future.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman may be right, but I would like some confirmation of that, and certainly more information than “the immediate future” because we are looking beyond 2021. There are projects whose timescales demand that. In fact, there are projects in my community that require funding for many years into the future, including projects at Bangor University.
What is also extremely unclear, to me at least—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us—is the criteria for the allocation of money under the shared prosperity fund. I would argue for allocation on the basis of need. We will not accept the milking of funds that would otherwise have gone to Wales to fund projects elsewhere. That  is certainly a fear. For example, Welsh farming might  proportionately get considerably less money than one would expect if the criteria were based on, say, per head funding.

Albert Owen: I represent a neighbouring constituency, so I share many of these projects in north-west Wales with the hon. Gentleman. He talked about the agricultural community. Is it not important that any new allocation of funds is not made through the Barnett formula, as this would mean a huge reduction in moneys allocated? We are talking here about food production, much of which is exported to mainland Europe.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I raised it with the then Minister over two years ago and was given a verbal assurance that that would not be the case. Were we to use the Barnett formula, funding to Welsh farming would probably be halved. At that time, the Minister gave us a verbal assurance, but I seek a similar reassurance from the Minister today.
Funding should go directly to our Government in Cardiff, rather than being allocated directly from London to individual local authorities and organisations. There is much merit in ensuring that local organisations and local government get the maximum funding. I have heard the argument that diverting money through Cardiff would increase bureaucracy and cost, but the fundamental argument is that the competent authority should be the Government in Wales. Any move in any other direction would undermine the devolution settlement and would be resisted by Members on these Benches and others.
To close, I should point out again to the Government that Wales is another country and that EU membership has had a different value and quality for us in Wales, as reflected in the funding we have been getting. That is particularly the case in my own area of Gwynedd, despite its poverty. One might suppose that that would put us in with areas that voted strongly to leave the EU, because of the marginalisation, poverty and distance from London and the seat of power. In fact Gwynedd voted 60:40 to remain, because of our values, the way we see the world, our culture, our bilinguality and our happiness at being part of the EU, which is much more congenial to us. Gwynedd is a different place—Wales is a different place—and should be treated with respect.

Scott Mann: Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for calling me in this important debate.
One of the promises the leave campaign made during the referendum was that European funding would be replaced. I am pleased the Government have pledged to introduce the shared prosperity fund, although I have to say that progress has been rather slow. European funding was designed to tackle inequalities between regions, and the shared prosperity fund should go in with exactly the same aim. I will be lobbying the Government strongly on behalf of my residents in North Cornwall to ensure we get our fair share of this funding. I will also be taking a lot of interest in the consultation, particularly after yesterday’s spending review.
The question of whether the current European funding has been successful can be answered by asking the public in towns such Bodmin in my constituency, who,  after two decades of regional development funding, are yet to see any tangible benefits to their incomes or small businesses. A recent report highlighted that only one job was created for every £250,000 of ERDF funding. I believe the UK Government can do much better than that.
Many large organisations, companies, professional public relations teams and consultants were able to successfully apply for this level of funding, but many small businesses in North Cornwall, which run their operations on tight budgets and do not have the time or the staff, or sometimes the expertise, to make those complicated and onerous bids, were not successful. As the Government look forward to the shared prosperity fund, we need to make it much easier for those small businesses to bid. The rules on these bids and structural funds were often dictated by Brussels. The shared prosperity fund must be easily accessible, be more streamlined and have a much simpler bidding process, so that small businesses in my constituency can benefit.
There are also disparities between urban and rural communities and, although programmes such as LEADER helped, we need to go much further. I know that the Minister was instrumental in the coastal communities fund, which was seen as a really positive fund for communities, including some that I represent, that were feeling left behind by globalisation. In North Cornwall, we have very mixed traditional industry, with many agricultural and fisheries businesses, but we are also keen to explore how 5G and fibreoptic technology can help people to run their businesses from home in small towns such as Bude in my patch.
People are making choices about where they live and work and, as they make those choices, they are looking at where they want to bring up their children, retire to or move their businesses to. Some of them are coming to places such as Cornwall. We want to be able to respond to the changing market conditions in places such as Cornwall by ensuring we have the business skills and the shared prosperity fund to support these small businesses as they grow. We need to ensure that as businesses are displaced from the cities we can accommodate them in rural places such as North Cornwall.

Mike Amesbury: I actually share some of the hon. Member’s analysis and concerns about the former structures, and I speak as someone who had the pleasure of taking forward ESF funds. The urgency now, which was displayed by 100 chief executives writing to the Prime Minister in August, is to get on with it and make it happen for communities such as Cornwall and Weaver Vale. Does he agree?

Scott Mann: I agree absolutely. We faced a bottleneck after we did not leave the European Union in March—a bottleneck with businesses not investing—and we have to clear that bottleneck as quickly as we can. The replacements for the ERDF should be in place to help those businesses to grow and expand as the economy changes.
On one occasion, there were two businesses working alongside each other in North Cornwall. One was able to double its footprint due to a generous EU grant, but that placed the other business, which was working on the other side of the road, a family-owned business, into some difficulty. We have to be aware of some of the  regional and local difficulties when implementing these funds and of how they can change the economies of the towns we work in.
To sum up, while North Cornwall will continue to ask for its fair share of these moneys, we also want to work with our local authority partners to ensure that we develop their programmes and their economic plans. During the upcoming consultation, I am hoping to be here and to speak up on behalf of the residents of North Cornwall to ensure that they get their fair share.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on securing this important debate. It builds on the important Westminster Hall debate that we held recently on this subject called by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). In that debate, we sought to elicit more information from the Government about how the shared prosperity fund would operate, and we also focused on the loss of EU funding and the impact it would have on regions classed by the EU as less developed. That is of particular importance to me because I represent a constituency in the north-east. We need to know what will happen about the shared prosperity fund.
Since that debate, however, we have heard very little from the Government about how things are going to proceed.

Chi Onwurah: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way and for her remarks. The UK is the most regionally unequal country in Europe and indeed the world in terms of how the economy is centralised around London. Does she share my concern that any fund administered from Whitehall will not meet the needs of regions such as ours—the north-east—or allow them to achieve their economic potential?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I absolutely agree. Indeed, we have pointed out in previous debates that, given what we know about regional inequality in this country, we do not trust this Government to use these funds to eradicate it.
As we have heard throughout this debate, we need a shared prosperity fund to replace the EU structural funds currently being paid to the UK regions through the European regional development fund and the European social fund. The total value to the UK of funding from these streams in the current funding round is £9.15 billion, or £1.3 billion per year, so we are talking substantial sums of money. There are also smaller pots of funding—the European maritime and fisheries fund, the LEADER programme, the youth employment initiative and so on—amounting to a further £100 million a year.
Although there are funding implications for the whole of the UK, our withdrawal from the EU and the loss of access to these funding streams is of particular importance to the regions of greatest need. If the UK were to remain in the EU, we would be due to receive significant additional funding in the next round. I am not sure that the Minister has taken this issue on board. It would be really good to hear him acknowledge what these regions would have got if we were staying in the EU. The three regions that are currently affected—Tees Valley and  Durham, South Yorkshire and Lincolnshire—are on course to slip below the threshold of 75% of EU average GDP per head, which means they will qualify for extra funding. They would join the three regions already acknowledged—west Wales, the valleys and Cornwall—in receiving a much higher level of funding: about £135 million a year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, the Government should be very concerned that these regions are facing such inequality and experiencing a need to develop their economies further. We really do want to hear from the Government how they are going to achieve that.
We want to hear from the Government about how the shared prosperity fund is going to operate, and about timescales. We want to hear what they are doing to address the growing regional inequality in the UK. How do they see the shared prosperity fund sitting alongside local growth funds, for example? How will those funds interact with other funds that are available to support regional development? Are the Government giving themselves a timeframe in which to eradicate regional inequality? To date, we have not had enough information from the Government. Even at this late stage, we know very little about how the fund will operate. What sort of money are we talking about, and will it be disbursed in the same way as it has been under the EU? Will the Government take into account the regions in greatest need, or not?
I feel very strongly about this issue, as do other Members of Parliament in regions that very much need investment to help our economies to grow and to reach their full potential. These are amazing regions with huge skills and talents among the population. They all need development in digital and higher-level skills, so we need to use our universities and colleges to drive up that development. They need investment in renewable energy—particularly the north-east, which has wonderful expertise in this—and in pharmaceuticals. We need to upgrade the transport system. We must ensure that everyone in these regions can reach their potential and contribute to the future prosperity that we all want to see, particularly in the communities that need more support from this Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Can I stress to colleagues that there is real pressure on time, and if they could take more like five minutes than six minutes, that would enable us to have a fair allocation of speakers this afternoon?

Luke Graham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on securing this debate. I thought we were going to be singing from the same hymn sheet today, because in previous debates on this topic we have agreed, but unfortunately he has, yet again, let nationalism get in the way of some of the facts and figures, and the actual impetus and help that these structural funds deliver. He is quite right that in the period 2014 to 2022 the funding arrangement for the EU structural fund is about £15 billion for the United Kingdom. That gets topped up to about £26 billion, I am informed by the House of Commons Library, with UK match funding.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about some of the roads being built in his constituency, as did the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). In those constituencies—yes, they are right—the EU flag does fly, but why does the Union flag not fly proudly alongside the EU flag and the Saltire when the UK has made a contribution, as I believe my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm?
Scotland received around £1.2 billion from EU structural funds between 2010 and 2016, which is great, and I will come on to say why I want that to be secured and continued. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey parades and champions the EU structural funds, as will I, but he was less willing to recognise the £1.2 billion of additional funding awarded to Scotland by the Government in the spending round just yesterday, which will give our devolved Administration in Scotland over not a six-year or 10-year period but a one-year period the greatest settlement we have had in over a decade.
My constituency of Ochil and South Perthshire has only received £1.1 million to £1.3 million a year of EU funds between 2014 and 2020 so far. That is not enormous, but it is helpful. Although Scotland has 8% of the UK population, we receive around 14% of the UK allocation, so it is very important to us. I know from visiting companies such as the Loch Leven Equine Practice in my constituency that these funds can be very helpful to small businesses.
The funds are meant to help combat structural inequality and have a transformative effect on the economy, but from my constituency point of view, they have not been able to do that. In Clackmannanshire, we still have a job density of only 0.5 per head of population. We have higher rates of unemployment and youth unemployment than the Scottish and UK averages. In Perth and Kinross, on the other side of my constituency, we also see it reflected in some of the official figures in terms of deprivation and in the recent increase in the number of drug deaths per 1,000 people.
I am quite excited about the fact that the shared prosperity fund can be a fresh start. Unlike the SNP, Conservative Members will be requesting more funding and coming up with innovative solutions. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey would like to make an intervention, I will gladly let him. He certainly did not let anyone on the Government Benches intervene on him.

Drew Hendry: rose—

Luke Graham: I will let him intervene, but before I do, the House will be well aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) tried to intervene on the him, and he refused her multiple times. It is a friendly understanding among Scottish MPs, who have to get back to friends, family and constituencies on a Thursday, that we usually let one another intervene because travel is very restrictive. He failed to do that. However, I will extend the courtesy to him in the hope that it will be reciprocated to my colleagues in future.

Drew Hendry: I thought the hon. Gentleman was inviting me to intervene on him. He mentions extra money for Scotland, but he does not take into account the cumulative cuts of £12 billion that we have had over the whole decade.

Luke Graham: I secured a debate on Scottish funding and devolved funding just before the summer recess to which no SNP MP turned up. In that debate, I gave the opportunity to challenge those figures and have an in-depth, detailed discussion about them, because they are not recognised by the House of Commons Library. If they are, I will be happy to welcome another debate on the topic, so that we can take it further.
I would like to go on to the positive things that we are trying to do. The shared prosperity fund allows us to formalise the process of applying for funds. It could also build and improve the city deal and growth deal projects that have already been awarded Scotland to the value of over £1 billion. The money in the city deals has been very welcome, but I think Members on both sides of the House would agree that the city deal and growth deal process could do with some improvement. We can have less bureaucracy, and central Government should provide support to not only the devolved Administrations but the local authorities and civic groups that are applying for these funds. So often, exciting and transformational opportunities are lost because local businesses and local groups do not have the skills to meet a Green Book or European set of qualifications to access the funding that they so require.

Bob Stewart: It seems to me that there is a requirement for the shared prosperity fund organisation to have a local office, particularly to help small businesses.

Luke Graham: I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. That is just the kind of innovative proposal that we should be putting forward and having a cross-party discussion about, to ensure that the shared prosperity fund works for the entire United Kingdom.
Although we could talk about this for a great many hours more, I am conscious of time, so I will conclude. I am pleased that the Government have guaranteed funding to 2022, which I am sure the Minister will confirm, so that we can give assurances to the charities, local government and businesses in our communities. We do not come with grievance; we come with solutions. Let us keep the central fund of around £1.2 billion plus inflation for the future, but let us also recognise that it has not delivered transformational change for our constituents in Scotland. Perhaps we could put some of the UK match funding into a new direct central fund that local authorities and businesses could bid into, along national lines, to provide greater clarity and guarantees for our local communities, so that they can access the funds they so badly need to thrive and survive.
I agree with colleagues in Wales, Scotland and England that these funds provide opportunities to all our regions. We want to combat structural inequality and improve the opportunities we have, and we want to do it through a fine United Kingdom system.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am afraid I will have to impose a time limit of five minutes.

Justin Madders: As we know, the central aim of the shared prosperity fund is to reduce inequality and enable all our communities  to share in the country’s economic growth. It could not be any more needed than it is now, because regional inequality has grown since 2010.
My constituency is in the north-west, and it is no surprise to me that earlier in the year the Institute for Public Policy Research North published a report finding that the north has borne the brunt of the Government’s austerity drive. We have had a £3.6 billion cut in public spending, while the south has had a £5.1 billion rise in real terms. We have seen public sector employment fall by 2.8%, compared with 1.2% in London, and spending on transport rose by more than twice as much in London as in the rest of the country. We have seen weekly pay increase by only 2.4%, compared with 3.5% nationally, and the number of jobs that pay less than the living wage has risen by nearly 11%.
Of course, these cuts have had and continue to have a negative impact on our communities. There are now more than 200,000 extra children living in poverty in the north than there were five years ago, meaning that 800,000 children are now living in poor households. That is nothing short of a scandal. The economy has been growing consistently—very slowly, but consistently—throughout the last five years, so having such an extra number of children growing up in poverty during that period shows that the way the economy is working at the moment does not work for many in the north. The points that have been made about maintaining, at the very minimum, existing levels of expenditure are absolutely right. The budget for the UK shared prosperity fund must match, in real terms, what the EU has been paying, but we need to go much further. I am worried about the lack of transparency from the Government about how they are going to adopt this fund, because I believe we have good grounds to be worried.
Let us take the future high streets fund. It is potentially a good initiative, but one that I fear has already been hijacked for party political ends. Ellesmere Port put forward what I considered to be a good bid. Indeed, the Government seemed to think it was, because when it was rejected in the first round, the Department wrote back a very nice letter to say that it was impressed with the bid and that it was well placed for the second round that would be decided some time next year. However, somehow—out of the blue—another round of funding for successful bids was announced only last week. Sadly, Ellesmere Port missed out again, but when I saw that the majority of the lucky towns were in Conservative constituencies, I was overcome by a flush of cynicism. Could it be that the announcement was entirely connected to secret plans to hold a snap general election? I think that subsequent events have borne out my concerns in that area, which is why we cannot trust this Government to allocate these funds in a non-partisan manner.
Towns such as Ellesmere Port and Neston in my constituency have been struggling for a long time. The rise of the internet and changes in shopping habits are leading to shops closing on a weekly basis. The sums we need for a truly transformative approach will not come from one pot alone. If the shared prosperity pot is operated in tandem with other funding pots, as the Local Government Association suggests, there would be an opportunity for an integrated and creative approach that could lead to a better outcome for all. Although we must ensure that this does not reduce the scope for matching funds in relation to any other projects, it is  vital that we can access as many funds as possible to ensure that the communities we represent are properly resourced, that the imbalances are shared out and that the inequalities across the country are actually eradicated altogether.
For too long, people have felt left behind and held back by a system that does not work for them. We do not want more platitudes from London. We need a new approach—one that really empowers our local communities by giving them the responsibility, power and resources to shape their own futures, in line with local priorities and local need, because decisions that impact on local communities are best made by those communities themselves. It does not make sense that, in 2019, London still controls all the resources and holds all the levers. It is time we realised that business as usual is not going to cut it, and that further Westminster handouts on Westminster terms are not what our communities want. We need this new prosperity fund to be really owned by local people so that it actually delivers for their priorities.

Bill Grant: I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for securing this debate, which is important for Scotland and the whole UK. In recent weeks Opposition Members have made many, fairly wild, allegations that the Government have not adequately planned for Brexit. Aside from the fact that we have seen daily evidence of considerable planning, and that we cannot possibly know today how effective such planning will be in the fullness of time, many are still determined to paint a bleak picture. I hope the provision of the UK shared prosperity fund will provide some reassurance to those who have instead kept an open mind, and offer an indication that the Government have planned for some time to replace the structural funding that the UK receives via the EU. British taxpayers’ money is currently managed in the European Union, far away in Brussels, and I believe this fund will considerably benefit my constituents.
This funding is in the region of £2.4 billion per annum to boost economic development. It will provide support for businesses, employment and agriculture and, as stated in the industrial strategy, it will strengthen the “foundation of productivity”. Fisheries will be covered by separate funds. The funding will be administered by the different nations of the UK, and I understand that, as always, the UK Government will respect the devolution settlements regarding the allocation of funds.
The laudable aim of the fund, which could be said to be at the skeletal heads of terms stage following stakeholder engagement, is to reduce inequalities between communities. A consultation will follow, to enable flesh to be added to the bones. I welcome the statement that the new fund will be low in bureaucracy and duplication. The single most important fact is that the UK Government have guaranteed to maintain all EU funding that was agreed before the UK leaves the EU.
Let me reflect on infrastructure in Scotland, the bulk and best of which was built long before we joined the European Union. I will name just two iconic bridges—the Forth rail bridge and the Forth road bridge—neither of which encompasses Chinese steel. I believe that recent data show southern Scotland as a less developed area. When considering my constituency, I welcome the fact  that this funding will provide support to local small businesses, several of which have highlighted to me that they routinely struggle to make a living, never mind a profit, under the burden of increasing rates and taxes, while also accommodating increased salary costs.
The unemployment rate in Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock is 6.9%, which is far above the Scottish and UK average of around 3.8%. My constituency has immense potential, and really needs this funding. That high unemployment rate would further concern me if, as part of its method of allocating spending between regions, the new UK shared prosperity fund replicated the measures used by the EU for its structural funds—namely GDP per person—because in some former mining areas that would result in a distorted picture.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggested that the funding should be focused on “inclusive growth” and be
“allocated according to the employment rate and earnings of the least well off”.
That would be most beneficial for constituencies such as mine, and others across the United Kingdom.
I have met several constituents with good, innovative ideas and sound STEM and business backgrounds who could perhaps benefit not just local communities but the wider UK. They are people whose ideas, with the support of local councils and community partnerships, could come to fruition if the right funding was available for them to bid for. It is therefore vital that we conserve what was formerly ERDF and ESF funding.
I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for his work on the all-party group for post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas. He produced an excellent report in November 2018. Will the Minister assure the House that the shared prosperity fund will be sufficiently funded, and flexible enough to take account of the diverse needs of my constituency, with its many struggling rural ex-mining communities that bear the legacy of a harsh industrial past, as well as those towns whose high streets have been ravaged by the change in shopping trends and, sadly, the demise of local banks?

Stephen Kinnock: I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for securing this important debate.
Over a year ago, I set up the all-party group on post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas, with the aim of holding the Government to account on their promises regarding the introduction of a shared prosperity fund that would replace EU funding in full. I am afraid to report that in this past year, despite organisations across the country relying on information so that they can plan their 2021 budgets, the Government have done absolutely nothing to make progress on the shape of that new fund.
In November, the all-party group published a report which set out 18 questions that the Government needed to answer. These questions were based on submissions from around 80 organisations from across the country. I will not name all 18, but the most pressing questions that were unanimously agreed on by all stakeholder organisations were the following. First, the UK shared prosperity fund must comprise not a single penny less in real terms than the EU and UK funding streams it  replaces. Westminster must not use Brexit as an opportunity to short-change the poorest parts of the UK. Equally, the UK Government must not prevent local areas from having appropriate control over the funds. Secondly, this is not just about the money. There is a real fear that it will not only be a financial grab but a power grab, and that the Westminster Government will use this opportunity to reduce funding for the areas that need it most, and to claw back powers that sit naturally with devolved Administrations and other local areas.
Those are very serious questions that need to be answered. Since November 2018, we have had positive and constructive meetings with the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary of State for Wales, and the former Business Minister. Disappointingly, the all-party group has not yet been granted a meeting with the Minister who is in his place today. None of those whom we spoke to were able to give us any cast-iron answers to the questions I have just set out. We are therefore continuing to demand that the Government guarantee not a penny less, not a power lost.
A recent worrying development is that the Government are considering rolling the local growth fund for England in with the UK shared prosperity fund. We know this only by rumour and leaks than by any clear or transparent statement, which is of course the modus operandi for this Government. As it stands, our recent report shows that the UK Government must find £1.8 billion per year to replace EU funding for the UK’s poorest regions, but that figure will reach £4 billion per year if the two funds are merged. The possibility of combining existing UK-managed funds with the UK SPF has led to fears of double-counting.
There were already fears that funding for the UK SPF may fall short of the EU’s projected 2021-2026 budget, given that three areas of the UK—Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire, and Tees Valley and Durham—have now fallen into a higher priority category. That is a damning indictment of the utter failure of this Government’s economic policies. They have gone into that higher priority category and would therefore receive more money in the next spending round than they each did between 2014 and 2020. That concern has now increased. I urge the Government to reconsider whether merging an England-only fund with a UK-wide fund is a logical step, and to recognise that rolling the two funds together would inevitably create serious confusion and raise serious doubts about transparency. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister addressed that in his summing up and specifically answered this question: will the SPF and the local growth fund be rolled into one or not? We need clarity about when the SPF consultation will be published. That is an absolutely priority.
The great advantage of the current system is that it is data-driven and evidence-based, thus guarding against pork-barrel politics. There is a real worry that the SPF will become a politicised slush fund, with a Conservative Government using it to buy votes in marginal seats. I hope that the Minister’s response today will reassure us that our constituencies will not be left short-changed by a sleight of hand in Westminster.

Jane Dodds: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on this really important issue. I am  grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for bringing it before the House.
We have heard from colleagues from Wales, and I echo what they said about the importance of this pot of money for people in Wales, particularly for rural areas. As the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, I know that we are particularly reliant on these sorts of funds to support our residents. I would like to say a few words about one project in particular: Workways+ in Powys, which helps young people to access jobs. In rural areas, we have a real challenge in keeping young people in our communities. Many want to move out to perhaps more exciting and more urban ways of living, but we want to keep them in our communities. They are our future. They are going to be the families of the future and the people who work in our communities, and we want to keep them there. Workways+ in Powys does a wonderful job of keeping our young people in our rural community.
I ask the Minister to address four points. First, will he give us a very clear timescale for publishing where the shared prosperity fund is going? Secondly, what is the consultation process? Thirdly, will he give us an assurance that the moneys from this fund will go to the devolved Governments? Certainly, in terms of Wales, he has had very clear representations on that. Finally, we all have our views on the politics of this issue, but we share a common interest: we want this fund, and we want the timescale for the fund and information to be given to us and our communities as quickly as possible.

Alison Thewliss: I thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Jane Dodds) for setting out her stall for her constituency. In the short time that she has been here, she has been a strong advocate for her constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and the Backbench Business Committee for granting us time to discuss this fundamentally important issue.
It is difficult to think of an area of Scotland’s economy that has not benefited from structural funds, and my constituency is no exception. Being part of the EU has been beneficial to Scotland in many ways, just as it has for Cornwall, as the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) set out, and for Wales, as the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and other Members said. There is no doubt that communities will be poorer as a result of leaving the EU—culturally, socially and economically. Organisations in Glasgow Central have received over £241 million in European structural funds since 2014 according to figures from the House of Commons Library.
The aims of European structural funds are closely aligned with those of the Scottish National party—to grow the economy while tackling inequalities. Our Madame Ecosse, Winnie Ewing, MEP, fought for European funds when Westminster got its sums wrong and tried to deny them to the highlands of Scotland. The Scottish Government have set out a programme of sustainable inclusive growth in their national performance framework and we are working as a responsible Government to improve outcomes across a range of indicators. It is extremely important that any replacement fund does not diverge from the aims of our inclusive growth strategy.
European structural funds have been vital in the delivery of inclusive growth in Scotland. The European social fund has been used to increase the skills available in Scotland’s labour market and to help to lift people out of poverty into increased social inclusion. The European regional development fund is supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and is investing in Scotland’s transition to a low-carbon economy. There is still a lot to be done to tackle inequality and we cannot let these issues be overshadowed by the process of Brexit.
The Scottish Government value the European structural funds dearly, not just because of the monetary value, but because we have a shared vision of what we can achieve when they are used in a strategic way. I am not convinced that the UK Government share that vision. I agree with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) that local areas do not want handouts on Westminster terms. It is difficult for anybody in Scotland to know precisely what the UK Government’s intention is. We have been waiting an inordinate amount of time for details on the UK shared prosperity fund. From the 2017 Tory manifesto until now, we still do not know. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) himself called it skeletal—I think that is being generous, frankly. It is not a trivial amount of money that we are dealing with here. Third sector organisations, which are delivering vital services in our communities, need to know what their future will be.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) set out well the questions that he and his APPG have been seeking, and referred to the lack of answers and clarity that, shockingly, we still have. We need to know how the new fund will be drawn and whether there will be criteria to allow for the treatment of contaminated land, for example, such as in Shawfield in the Clyde Gateway area. Decontamination programmes are crucial to development but cannot go ahead until funding is secured. Opportunities to clarify matters have come and gone, with the spending review only yesterday failing to address the issue.
These are vital funds, and many of the organisations that depend on them are doing valuable work to mitigate some of the worst excesses of this UK Tory Government. Those on the Tory Benches could barely be providing a better argument for Scottish independence. We are once again seeing a tale of two Governments, with the Scottish Government working to increase equality and grow the economy in a sustained and sensible way, and the UK Government hellbent on pursuing a hard exit from the EU without adequate preparations for what will come next.
The Scottish Government have been clear on the five key principles that they would like any new funding scheme to adhere to. First, there should be no reduction in the level of funding that Scotland currently receives from the EU. Secondly, the devolution settlement must be respected, and there must be no reduction in the powers that the Scottish Parliament currently has. Thirdly, the Scottish Government should be an equal partner in the development of the shared prosperity fund. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) let the cat out of the bag when he talked about the bypassing of the Scottish Government—

Luke Graham: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Alison Thewliss: No, the hon. Gentleman has had  his say.

Luke Graham: The hon. Lady is misinterpreting me. I did not talk about bypassing the Scottish Government. I specifically said—I am sure that Hansard will have recorded this—guaranteeing the £1.2 billion plus inflation, plus an additional fund that could be administered centrally so that they could work together in partnership, because that is what our constituents want: devolution plus central Government in a United Kingdom.

Alison Thewliss: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a United Kingdom system here. He is talking about the UK choosing Scotland’s priorities. That is not what our communities deserve, that is not devolution and that does not respect the devolution settlement, and he knows that just fine.
Fourthly, the current level of flexibility in the allocation of funds should not be reduced. Fifthly, the replacement scheme should be operational in time to be implemented in early 2021, so that communities, organisations and businesses in Scotland do not lose out on much-needed funding. There must not be any gap, and the Minister needs to be able to guarantee that today.

Philippa Whitford: With the threat of actually being out of the EU in literally a matter of weeks, is not a gap inevitable, given that we are talking about the end of 2021?

Alison Thewliss: I agree with my hon. Friend that a gap is inevitable. We do not know what will happen, and the UK Government cannot tell us what will happen next week, never mind in 2021. We cannot believe anything that they tell us on these commitments.
Will the Minister today commit to giving the principles set out by the Scottish Government the consideration they deserve, because the people of Scotland did not vote for any of this Brexit mess and should not lose out on funding as a result? Scotland has benefited from EU funds while the UK Government looked the other way, from the Kessock bridge to inequalities, education and industry. Will he guarantee today that Scotland will have not one penny less under the shared prosperity fund than we would have received under the EU?

Peter Dowd: We have had 11 speakers and interventions, and I think they have all expressed their concern about the lack of detail. I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for bringing this to our attention.
The breaking news as I arrived in the Chamber was that the right hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), the Prime Minister’s brother, is standing down from Parliament, apparently to spend less time with his family.
As a Member of Parliament who represents a Merseyside seat, I very much appreciate, in a personal sense, the role that EU funds have played in ensuring investment in our region, as in other regions. I remember that Geoffrey Howe, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, talked about the managed decline of Merseyside in the early 1980s. The European economic community was virtually the only social and economic lifeline that the city region had.
The Minister can sit there chuntering and shouting from the Front Bench, but I think he should behave in a much more dignified way. The Tories are using bully-boy  tactics at the moment, threatening everybody. The Minister should pause and think about the distress that his Government caused to so many regions, and continue to cause to so many regions now. We have a bully-boy Minister, a bully-boy Prime Minister, and a bully-boy adviser in Dominic Cummings. Let us see a little bit of respect for the Chamber, and for the democracy that it embodies.
EEC funds helped Merseyside, and they helped other regions. The Government’s proposals raise a fundamental question that others have raised today and that the House must address. Even if the UK leaves the European Union and ends our participation in these funds—or substitute funds—can we trust the Government to ensure that the proposed prosperity fund will offer the same funding and reach the same communities? That question has been asked by virtually every Member, including Conservative Members, and there is also concern about the delay.
As was pointed out in June by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), a report published recently by the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions states that had the UK remained in the EU we would have been entitled to €13 billion from EU structural funds between 2021 and 2027. That amount, an increase from €10.6 billion, would have allowed five regions—including West Wales and the Valleys, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Tees Valley and Durham, Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire—to receive the lion’s share of the funds, as they represent some of the “least developed regions” in Europe, where GDP falls below 75% of the European average. The fact that those regions fall below the 75% threshold is itself a indictment of a Government who have let them down and continue to do so. The very fact that the UK has gone from having two less developed regions to five in a matter of six years testifies to the failure of their economic policies.
Falling GDP is another legacy of the Conservative Government’s austerity agenda, which resulted in 200,000 more children living in poverty in the north than five years ago. As other Members have said, under this Government regional inequality is at an all-time high. According to analysis conducted by the Institute for Public Policy Research, the north of England has lost £6.3 billion of public spending as a result of the Conservatives’ economic policies, while the south has gained £3.2 billion. The Chancellor’s spending round statement yesterday did little to address regional inequality, despite what was promised earlier in the year.
The importance of the structural funds that the UK receives from the EU cannot be underestimated. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, they are worth £2.4 billion a year, which goes to the very people whom the Government have left behind. That £2.4 billion is broken down between £1.2 billion a year from the EU and equal funding matched by other public and private sources. The funds finance research and development projects, support the retraining and skilling of workforces, help small and medium-sized businesses to grow, and encourage local areas to make the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Let me now deal specifically with the proposal for a shared prosperity fund. Previously, Ministers have committed themselves to maintaining the current arrangements for structural funds throughout the transition period. Given the Government’s commitment to pushing the UK towards a no-deal Brexit, perhaps the Minister  will tell us for how long the Government will now commit themselves to similar levels of funding, and over what period. I am sure that he will be able to do so.
Similarly, while the Government have said that the fund will “reduce inequalities between communities”, they have consistently failed to offer further details about the specific design of the funds and who will be likely to administer them. Virtually every Member who has spoken today has drawn attention to that pattern. There is a fear, particularly among the devolved Governments and the metro mayors, that the shared prosperity fund will be yet another centralised fund controlled by Whitehall—a slush fund, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). The clue is in this: the Prime Minister said at a recent leadership hustings in Cardiff that there should be a “strong Conservative influence” over how money that replaces EU structural funds is spent in Wales, implying at the very least that this Government will interfere with the distribution of funds far more than previously stated. That is key.
Ministers have claimed that a shared prosperity fund would be easier to administer and reduce bureaucracy, but again there is little detail on how this will be achieved, especially if the Treasury is hellbent on administering these funds centrally and with little flexibility for the involvement of the regions and devolved Governments.
The UK remains one of the most economically unequal countries in Europe. The gap between the richest and poorest is almost twice as large as in France and three quarters larger than in Germany. The EU structural funds have played an important role in addressing these regional inequalities, which the poorest communities cannot afford to lose. It is time for the Government to dispense with the smoke and mirrors, come clean about the details of the Government’s plan to replace EU structural funds, and offer a cast-iron guarantee that the communities that rely on these funds will not be cut adrift and there will be as much devolution and subsidiarity in these funds as possible.
The prevarication and procrastination at the heart of the Government is affecting the continuity of services already being provided, with staff in various agencies currently funded by EU funds being laid off. For example, Members will probably have had contact from employment support providers for ex-offenders, particularly vulnerable people whom Jobcentre Plus is ill-equipped to help. Staff are having to be laid off because we do not know about the future of the fund.
At this stage we still do not have any details on what the fund will cover. The Government are more than six months behind schedule in providing details of the post-2020 funding and have not yet published a consultation. The indecision of the Government in so many policy areas is damaging the country and their indecision on this particular fund follows that pattern. Ministers need to get a grip of this sooner rather than later.

Jake Berry: It is a privilege and an honour to have the opportunity to respond to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on proposing it. It presents us with a timely opportunity to update the House on the progress we are making.
I also congratulate the hon. Members who have spoken; I will not have time to name them or respond to all the points they have raised but this shows that across the House there is real passion for the communities that each of us represents, and I share that passion for my own constituency, of course, in east Lancashire.
Many of the Members who have contributed referred to our being the recipients of EU money, and I think it is really important that the point is made for people who may be watching our proceedings today at home and following our every word about the future of EU structural funding and the UK shared prosperity fund that this is not the EU’s money. This money belongs to the British taxpayer; it is taken into the EU and is sliced, diced and taken away. It is then returned to the British people wherever they may be in our United Kingdom with a whole load of strings attached.
In 2018 the UK contributed £13.2 billion to the European Union and it sent us back £4 billion—£4.3 billion to be precise. We know in this country better how to spend UK taxpayers’ money than the European Union does; many Members on this side of the House, if not the other side of the House, will certainly agree with that.
We in Government have a history of working with the devolved Administrations, metro mayors and local authorities across our United Kingdom, and that is why we are so pleased that we were able to commit over £500 million of Government funding to the Glasgow city region deal. Specifically in the Inverness and Highland city region, we are proud to have contributed £53 million, among other things, towards the funding of the University of the Highlands, about which the proposer of the debate spoke with such passion. I know he will let no opportunity pass him by to ensure that the Scottish Government, the European Union and the UK Government are all credited for the contributions they have made to that exciting growth deal.

Jamie Stone: An issue that I and others raised with the previous Secretary of State for Scotland is that, while we welcome the Inverness and Highland city region money, there is some evidence that the money is not going to some of the furthest corners of the Highlands, such as Wick and Thurso in my constituency, where it has been badly needed.

Jake Berry: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point on behalf of his constituents. I know it is not the first time he has made it, and we should certainly continue to monitor that. I, like him, suspect that there may not be a completely even-handed approach to disbursing money around the highlands, but he will know more about that than I do. However, these growth deals across our United Kingdom in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are an example of what we can achieve when we work together as four nations. The awesome foursome that makes up the United Kingdom is the most successful political partnership and Union that Europe has ever known, and that is why, despite what the separatists may say in today’s debate, we are stronger together.
Turning to the main points raised in this debate, I understand that recipient organisations of European funding have concerns about the certainty of the future of their funding, but it is important that we acknowledge—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) seeking to intervene?

Stephen Kinnock: Yes. I thank the Minister for giving way. He just referred to the funding as “European funding”, but I thought he said in his opening remarks that it was not European funding. Will he clarify that point?

Jake Berry: I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman is listening closely to my response. What I would say is that if he, like me, is concerned about protecting the British taxpayer’s pound, perhaps he will reflect on the fact that the Bill passed by Opposition parties last night in this Parliament will cost the UK taxpayer £1 billion a month for every additional month we spend in the European Union. That will cost up to £24 billion. Maybe he should be committed, as I am, to leaving on 31 October as the British people want, if he is concerned about spending money.

Peter Dowd: I am glad the Minister is telling us how much it costs—£1 billion a week or a month or whatever it happens to be. He is very good with his numbers, so can he give us an estimate of how much a no-deal Brexit will cost the country each month?

Jake Berry: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is suffering from a version of Stockholm syndrome. I happen to believe that the British people and this British Parliament are best able to determine the future for our country. The rebel alliance is going to Europe with its flag fluttering behind it—a white cross on a white background—surrendering British sovereignty, but I am proud to be part of a Government that will never support that.

Peter Dowd: This stuff about surrendering is bizarre, because this is the Government who surrendered last night to what is apparently the surrender Bill. That is the situation we are in. They should publish the Yellowhammer report and make it transparent, so that we can see how much a no-deal crashing out will cost us. Let us get the facts on the table, so that we can examine them—if they do not prorogue Parliament before then.

Jake Berry: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to have blamed the passing of his surrender Bill on the House of Lords. The Members of Parliament who voted for it know that the Opposition parties have passed a law meaning that we cannot leave the European Union on 31 October, deal or no deal. If we do get to an election—if the Labour party finally has the backbone to have a general election—I will be reminding lots of those constituencies in the north of England that it was the Labour party that stopped us leaving on 31October.

Philippa Whitford: Will the Minister give way?

Mike Amesbury: Will the Minister give way?

Jake Berry: I am sorry, but I must make some progress, and I would like to briefly get on to responding to the debate.
Specifically, I want to deal with the two pertinent questions, which were repeated by many others, asked by the hon. Member for Aberavon in an extremely good speech. The first was about whether the UK shared prosperity fund will respect the devolution settlement,  and the answer is absolutely yes. We are clear about that, and we want to work with the devolved Administrations and metro mayors as partners. We do not want to set the UKSPF up against the devolution settlement, which we will celebrate in the country.
The second question was about when the quantum will be clear, and it will not become clear until we have completed the comprehensive spending review. I will point out, however, that the quantum from the European Union would also not be clear until 2020. People have referred to the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions report, but that is of course a report by a think tank. It is not a report from the European Union setting out the quantum at this stage.
Finally, turning to the guarantee provided by the Government, it is quite right that areas are worried about the future of their funding, which is why the Government have set out a guarantee—deal or no deal. This week, I was involved in discussions approving new spending in the current period of European funding, and the guarantee enables commitments to be made until 2021, and it will apply to commitments that are paid out between now and 2023, so there is certainty for projects. Projects are still being approved. With the guarantee, there will be no gap, and clarity about the quantum and the form of the UK shared prosperity fund will become clear at the comprehensive spending review, notwithstanding the fact that we are already involved in deep consultation with both the recipients of the funding—British taxpayers’ cash—and the mayors and devolved Administrations. Official level consultation is ongoing between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. The most recent meeting took place on 2 August, and additional consultations will happen later this month.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would have loved to have said more, but—

Sarah Newton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jake Berry: I am sorry, but I am unable to give way. I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion.

Drew Hendry: I thank all hon. Members who took part in today’s debate and the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity. I must correct the Minister, because the CPMR is not a think tank. It is a representative organisation of local authorities from across Europe, and I know that because I used to be its vice-president. We asked the Minister to clarify the flexibility and timetable, but we have had no answer. We asked the Minister whether funding will be matched pound for pound, but we have had no answer. We have had no answer on whether devolution will be fully respected. He said—[Interruption.] I will allow the Minister in.

Jake Berry: To be absolutely clear and to repeat what I said in my contribution, the Government will fully respect the devolution settlement in respect of the UK shared prosperity fund and, I am sure, in all other respects.

Drew Hendry: In that case, I will accept the Minister’s comments, but he will be judged not on cheap words but on the actions of this Government and on whether they fail our communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes with concern that the Government is more than half a year behind its schedule to provide details of post-2020 funding through a UK Shared Prosperity Fund; supports the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recommendation that the Fund should at the very least match the £2.4 billion per year currently allocated through the EU structural funds; and calls on the Government to ensure that full details of the fund are published with urgency, that the devolved settlement is respected and that there is no reduction in the levels of funding to devolved governments or their role in distributing funds.

Martin Docherty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, following the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I asked about aspects of being Irish, British or both in relation to an upcoming review that the previous Prime Minister had promised. In response, the Secretary of State stated:
“It is vital that this House continues to respect the dual citizenship components that the hon. Gentleman talks about”.
I talked about the birth right to be Irish, the birth right to be British, or both. What is open to Members such as myself to ensure that the Secretary of State reads the Good Friday agreement and recognises that the utterances that they make in relation to the politics of Northern Ireland have grave consequences not only for the peace, but for the social and economic prosperity of the people of Northern Ireland?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. Obviously, I am sure he will understand that Ministers are responsible for what they say in the House. He has expressed concern about what was said earlier, he has made his point, and I am sure it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and will be reported back to the Minister.

British House Building Industry

Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the ongoing shortage of housing and the housing crisis across England; further notes with concern the number of families in temporary accommodation and the number of people rough sleeping; acknowledges that there are over one million households on housing waiting lists; recognises the Government’s target to build 300,000 new homes each year; acknowledges that this target has been missed in each year that the Government has been in office and that the number of homes constructed by housebuilding companies that are deemed affordable is insufficient; notes the pay ratios between executives and employees in FTSE 350 housebuilding companies; and calls on the Government to tackle the housing crisis as an urgent priority.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for today’s debate, and all the Members who will participate. It is amazing to see so many Members here, given the week we have had. At the request of Madam Deputy Speaker, I have stripped quite a lot from this speech because so many people want to speak—I will do my best. I want to give credit to the High Pay Centre and the best possible exposition of its amazing research for this debate on the state of the house building industry.
No Member of this House, whatever their party, can but be fully aware of the crisis in housing and homelessness in all our constituencies. I will open the debate by looking at the scale of the current housing crisis, by considering the record of the FTSE 350 house building companies and their contribution to solving this crisis and finally, and most amazingly, by analysing the utter pay inequality that is rife across the British house building industry.
On streets across our country and on the very doorstep of Parliament, British citizens who simply cannot afford a place to call home are sleeping rough. For the general public they are the visual representation of our homelessness crisis. As highlighted by the Children’s Commissioner last month, homelessness is far more common in 21st-century Britain.
Not a single week goes by without a normal, hard-working family in my constituency being evicted from their privately rented property and sent to temporary accommodation miles away from family, their schools and their jobs. They join over 83,700 households across our country, including 124,000 children, who are living in temporary accommodation.

Joan Ryan: May I add to the picture the hon. Lady is painting by telling her that Enfield has significant problems on housing and homelessness? We have the capital’s highest eviction rate and the second highest number of residents in temporary accommodation, and homelessness has rocketed by 250% since 2011. Does she agree—from what she is saying, I think she clearly does—that the Government’s policy is not only hurting the housing market but causing a huge set of social problems, too?

Siobhain McDonagh: The social and financial cost of homelessness far exceeds what we spend on temporary accommodation, which was £1 billion of taxpayers’ money last year—every £1 of it badly spent. Some 6,980 families  in my constituency are trapped in bed and breakfast accommodation, having been there longer than the six-week legal limit, including 810 children. Others are stuck in hostels far away from their schools, families and friends.
Some of my constituents are housed, at least temporarily, in Connect House, a warehouse on the busiest south London industrial estate. For anybody who wants to see what Connect House looks like, please have a look at the video on my Twitter account.
I am just crawling through my speech, because I see more and more people here.
Other families who have come to see me are on the ever-expanding waiting list, with 1.2 million families across our country now waiting for a place to call home—1.2 million. Just 6,464 new social homes were built in 2017-18, the second lowest number on record. At that rate, it could take 172 years to give a socially rented home to everyone on the current waiting list. That is utterly appalling when we compare those figures with the 150,000 social homes delivered each year in the mid-1960s or the 203,000 council homes that the Government delivered in 1953. It has been done before and we all know that we can do it again.
In Merton, where my constituency is based, 10,000 families are on the housing waiting list, with lettings for just 2.5% of them in 2018-19. What hope can I give the other 97.5% that they will ever find a place to go? I would like to provide statistics on home ownership but, again, I will move on to some of the other data in my speech.
The statistics and the stories that I have detailed this afternoon should provide thoroughly fertile ground for the British house building industry to get on and build, but its record does not match the potential. Here is the reality: our country’s housing target is 300,000 new homes a year—a figure that has not been reached, as we have already identified, since 1969, when councils and housing associations were building new homes. England is now on course for the worst decade for house building since the second world war.
I would like to look specifically at the performance of the leading house building companies in our country. To the best of my understanding, the figures are all correct as of June. In the last financial year, just 86,685 homes were completed by the 10 FTSE 350 house building companies, despite an extraordinary collective pre-tax profit of more than £5.37 billion. That is a mind-boggling figure, which is better understood when broken down.
Let us start with the four FTSE 100 housing companies: Barratt, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Berkeley. In the most recent financial year, Barratt completed just 17,579 homes—slightly more than Persimmon, which finished 16,449 homes, with profits of £1.1 billion, of which half was down to public subsidy through the Government’s Help to Buy scheme. Taylor Wimpey came third with 15,275 homes completed but, in fourth place, despite an astonishing pre-tax profit of £934.9 million, is Berkeley homes, which completed a pitiful 3,894 homes. Together, those four companies collected a pre-tax profit of an unimaginable £3.68 billion, despite completing just 53,198 homes—less than 18% of the Government’s house building target.
What went wrong? Did they perhaps just not have the land to build the houses? Those four companies are sitting on a land bank of more than 300,000 plots between them. If we add in the rest of the FTSE 350 house building companies—Bellway, Bovis, Countryside, Crest Nicholson, Galliford and Redrow—the collective land bank is a staggering 470,068 plots, yet they completed 86,685 homes between them.

Jack Lopresti: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her excellent speech, with which I broadly agree. Does she agree that while, from a moral point of view, we obviously need to build more houses in the public and private sectors, we also need to radically reform the planning system, which takes far too long and is a big roadblock to getting the homes we need for people?

Siobhain McDonagh: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and would love an opportunity to have a debate about planning law, building on the green belt and other matters. I could speak at great length about them but I will not because I want to allow other people to get in.
I would like Members to focus their attention on pay. Some of the figures are staggering. Let me be clear: I am new Labour to the core. I have no problem with successful businesspeople earning a lot of money, but what happens in this sector goes beyond earning a fair day’s money. I was furious to see that, almost exclusively on the back of the British taxpayer through Help to Buy, Persimmon awarded its former chief executive Jeff Fairburn a staggering £75 million bonus, despite an appalling record of utterly substandard homes. How can that be right or fair?

Justin Madders: That is a truly staggering pay packet. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that Persimmon has recently given back the freeholds in Cardiff that it mis-sold to a number of homeowners, it should do that for everyone to whom it has mis-sold in the whole country?

Siobhain McDonagh: I completely agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on all the work he has been doing. Without the attention he has given the issue, much would not have happened.
Let us be clear: the money does not flow through the companies. Thanks to excellent new research from the High Pay Centre, I can reveal the quite extraordinary pay packets of the 10 FTSE 350 house building companies. In the heart of our country’s housing crisis, the four FTSE 100 house building companies spent an eye-watering £53.2 million on their CEO pay. David Thomas at Barratt earned £2.811 million; Peter Redfern of Taylor Wimpey earned £3.152 million; Tony Pidgley at Berkeley reached £8.256 million; and Mr Fairburn, formerly of Persimmon, got a whopping £38.9 million.

Bob Stewart: The hon. Lady is making a great speech and I totally endorse everything she has said. I am really worried as to what the heck the shareholders are doing. Do they not question this when they have their annual general meeting? They are meant to bring the companies to account on such matters.

Siobhain McDonagh: Actually, the shareholders are doing quite well as well, because they are getting quite a lot of money on the back of Help to Buy. That could be the subject of another debate.
I have no doubt that those four men work hard and have a grasp and understanding of their industry that few others could provide, but surely high pay is supposed to be about high productivity and high quality of product. It seems to me that the more substandard the properties they build and the lower their rate of productivity, the more they get paid. There seems to be no consequence for poor performance. We are in a housing crisis—is it really appropriate to provide such preposterous pay packets, considering the house building record I have described?

Richard Bacon: I agree with almost everything that the hon. Lady has said, but I ought to point out—I declare an interest, because as part of an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship I spent a day at Berkeley—that the main shareholder of Berkeley is Tony Pidgley, who started that business himself. He left school at 15, unable to read and write, and he has employed thousands of people, created a great deal of wealth for this country and paid a huge amount of tax. Moreover, he would deny—and he would be right to do so, unlike some of the others the hon. Lady rightly mentioned—that Berkeley produces poor quality. It does not; it produces extremely good quality. Berkeley refuses to be a member of the Home Builders Federation because it does not consider itself a volume house builder.

Siobhain McDonagh: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman in part. I have had the honour of meeting Mr Pidgley and I give him credit for his career and his actions. His profits do not come from Help to Buy but, even so, it does seem like a very unequal company. I have no problem with people earning well at the top, but the people at the bottom should not earn badly.

Matt Western: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and making an excellent speech. On her last point, as far as I understand it, Berkeley constructed no affordable housing last year, and for Barratt Homes, Persimmon and the others in the top four, the figures are around 18% to 20%. It is a complete scam. The amount of money they are taking out at the top, and not just for executive pay or shareholder pay—I have no problems with shareholders receiving dividends and so on—is at the expense of much-needed social and affordable housing. The whole viability element of the planning system is a complete scam and should be done away with.

Siobhain McDonagh: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I know that he works really hard on that subject. Just like the issues about the whole planning system, that could be the topic of another debate, to which I am sure we would both want to contribute.
The median pay for FTSE 100 house building CEOs is 228 times that of the typical UK construction worker.

Gareth Johnson: Does the hon. Lady agree that one way forward would be to increase the opportunities for self-build? It is incredibly difficult  at the moment. If an individual wants to buy a plot of land and find a builder to construct a house for them, they find so many obstacles in their way. Does the hon. Lady agree that that may be a way forward to improve on the current situation?

Siobhain McDonagh: I think the hon. Gentleman has stolen the words of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who also does loads of work on self-build. It is an issue that small and medium-sized builders have been squeezed out, but unfortunately I do not have time to address that matter today.
Let me return to the matter of pay ratios. At Barratt, the pay ratio between median executive pay and median construction worker pay is a disappointing 113:1. At Taylor Wimpey, it is an awful 126:1. At Berkeley, it is a shocking 331:1. But at Persimmon, it is an absolutely deplorable 1,561:1. Jeff Fairburn, in his final year of employment as chief executive of Persimmon, received more than £38.9 million, yet his average member of staff earnt £37,118. That was for technical staff. We do not know what the company’s subcontracted electricians, roofers or other wet tradesperson might have received. How can that be fair?
The vast scale of inequality looks even worse in the light of UK housing prices. Assuming that the average UK house price is £230,630—I assure the House that it is not possible to buy anything in my constituency or in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for that price—and that the average UK construction worker saves 10% of their earnings to buy a house, it would take them 92 years to save up and 19 years just to save for the deposit alone. But the average FTSE 350 CEO could buy 28 houses outright in one year, 532 houses over 19 years—the years that the construction worker would be using to build a deposit—and 2,567 houses over the 92 years in which the construction worker would be saving up to afford their home. On no level can this be right or fair. It cannot be right for our society. It cannot be right for us as taxpayers. It is simply wrong. The system is broken. In the main, the market does not reward hard work, endeavour and meeting the housing need. In my view, it certainly should do.

Eleanor Laing: It will be obvious to Members that we have very little time left—not surprising in the current circumstances—and that lots of people want to speak. We will try to manage without a time limit. Let us see whether we can be courteous and consensual. If everyone takes around five minutes, we will get there.

Richard Bacon: That is very helpful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) very sincerely? I realised how strange times are in this particular area of housing debate when I attended a lunch at the Institute of Economic Affairs, where the hon. Lady was the guest speaker. I realised that it is the case not so much that there is political cross-dressing going, but that many of us are searching for solutions outside the traditional parameters; and that is because, as the title of the White Paper from January 2017 said, we have   a broken housing market. We might have some differences about the causes of the situation she accurately describes, and about the best prescriptions for solving it, but it is absolutely clear that supply does not rise to meet demand. She used the word “market” in her last couple of sentences, which rather implies that we have a market for housing, but we have no such thing; we have a tightly controlled oligopoly, and actually supply does not rise to meet demand, because most suppliers do not wish to damage their own profit margins by oversupplying the market so that prices fall. We would not expect that in any other area of business and we should not expect it in housing.
Fundamentally, we need to change the model. If we have a broken housing market, we need to create a different ecosystem, and one of the fundamental things we need to do is increase choice for consumers. It is by far the single biggest thing people spend money on —whether renting or buying, it is the thing that people spend most of their monthly income on—but it is the thing over which they have the least choice. In any ecosystem in which the consumer had any say, it would be the thing over which they had the most choice.
As well as increasing choice, we have to lower barriers to entry, and that is where I want to bring in my favourite subject, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), namely self-build and custom house building.

Matt Western: On choice, I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. One of the critical things, in addition to self-build, is the reintroduction of all the small and medium-sized enterprise builders we lost after 2007-08. Apparently, a quarter of all houses built are built by SMEs, whereas it used to be two thirds.

Richard Bacon: In 1988, it was indeed two thirds. If we increase the regulation and make it more difficult to get hold of land, it is the SMEs that will go, because only the big firms with the big balance sheets can afford it. It is a very risky enterprise, and actually local planning authorities prefer dealing with a small number of large companies because it is easier for them. That is one of the other things we have to change.
I am accused of wanting everyone to learn how to be a builder and build their own house. It has nothing to do with doing it yourself. It is very important to stress that. It is about self-commissioning and giving the customer more power. I will be briefing the Minister next week on the terms of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which commenced three years ago in April 2016, and the way it was augmented successfully by the Housing and Planning Act 2016, so that now the more people who are on the local register the greater the legal obligation on a council to provide suitable planning permissions.
The point about having individuals and associations of individuals under the terms of the legislation is that it could apply to anybody. It could be used by school governors wishing to use the provision of a serviced plot of land as a recruitment and retention tool; by local social services directors trying to recruit social work managers in parts of the country where it is difficult to find the right calibre of social worker; by  NHS trusts trying to accommodate staff, whether young junior doctors, paramedics or ambulance staff; by local Army commanders trying to retain that very expensively trained staff sergeant with 20 years’ experience; by the Royal British Legion and other veterans groups trying to accommodate veterans; by probationers and ex-offenders trying to make sure that ex-offenders coming out of prison have accommodation that is not the drug dealer’s sofa; and by the homeless themselves—I have seen just outside Berlin, in Potsdam, homeless single mums building their own accommodation for an affordable rent.
That brings me to my next point: it has nothing to do with tenure. One can use self-build and custom house building both for private ownership and for all kinds of affordable accommodation models, including mutual housing co-operatives and various other types of social landlords.
I am keen to keep my remarks brief, but I want to say a few things to the Minister about what the Right to Build Task Force, which I have been involved with for some years, is now looking for. We had £350,000 of funding from the Nationwide Building Society, and with that we can evidence an additional 6,000 to 9,000 houses added to the pipeline in the last three years. If we can do that with £350,000, think what we could do with some serious money. I would like the Department to take on the funding for that, but also as part of a help-to-build team installed within Homes England with the task of facilitating the delivery of service plots, buying land, and working with local authorities and other public sector partners on public sector land for a range of client groups, especially the young and those who have been most marginalised. That team should also reach out to anybody who wants to get a service plot so that we reach a point where someone can go to the plot shop in the local town hall in their home town and find a plot of land as easily as people can in the Netherlands, where I have seen it done.
We have to put help to build on a level playing field with Help to Buy. The Government are currently planning to spend £22 billion on Help to Buy, subsidising demand, when we should really be subsidising supply. If one wants more of something, then subsidise it and it will happen. I know from many people I have spoken to, including Treasury Ministers, that there is a desire to do something about the growing cost of Help to Buy. The obvious thing to do is to wean people off Help to Buy—a subsidy for demand—and wean them on to a subsidy for supply, thus increasing supply.
We have to remove the regulations that currently allow local authorities to charge people to be on the register each year. Most do not, but Camden and Islington councils charge £350, and people do not get any guarantee of a plot for that. That should be revoked. I said that to Gavin Barwell when the regulations were introduced. I was not put on the Committee for some reason, even though it was my own private Member’s Bill that became the Act, but I went along anyway and spoke. He said on the record—I can show this to the Minister—that if it proved to be a problem, he would take a look at it. Although he is no longer the Minister, the Government were committed to looking at it. I can tell the Minister that it has become an issue and we should now revoke these regulations. The charge is supposed to recover the cost of keeping a register, but that is really very small—it can be done in an exercise book kept in a drawer or on a spreadsheet.
We need to introduce a series of specific planning reforms, particularly allowing for exception sites where councils are not fulfilling their legal obligations. We need to make it clear that the national planning policy framework has a presumption in favour of sustainable development in circumstances where councils fail to meet their duties under the legislation, irrespective of whether there is a five-year land supply, in terms of providing service plots. We need to introduce changes to the planning system that provide greater predictability to reduce the planning risk—for example, through the compulsory use of form-based codes or through local development orders. We need to take forward the proposals in the White Paper to facilitate land pooling, which has worked very successfully in Germany and elsewhere on the continent.
We do have a broken system, and doing more of the same will not produce a different result. We have to think differently and do differently. I encourage the Minister to take that responsibility seriously.

George Howarth: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who made a typically thoughtful and interesting contribution to the debate on housing.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on her survey of the state of the market and some of the negative aspects of it that we need to address. Anybody who reads her speech in Hansard tomorrow or at some later point will consider some of the companies that she named to be a roll call of disrepute.
On that theme, I wrote to the chief executive of Redrow, the developer, about a leasehold scandal following conversations with concerned residents of Summerhill Park in my constituency. Summerhill Park has over 455 houses and 70 flats. There is a two-tier system of ground rents in operation. Residents who purchased their properties early on in the development pay ground rents of £150 a year, while those who purchased homes in the later phases pay £250 a year. My constituents want to be enfranchised. They want to purchase their freeholds and are willing to pay a fair price. They believe—and I agree with them—that a fair price would be 10 times the annual ground rent, which they think is fair and reasonable and are willing to pay. Redrow, however, is asking for 26 times the annual ground rent, which I think, frankly, is unfair and unreasonable.
In the light of the Government’s reform proposals and the Law Commission’s ongoing work on leasehold reform, I approached Redrow to arrange a meeting to discuss the residents’ ideas further. Redrow contended in its response that the lease agreements are fair and transparent, which my constituents strongly disagree with, as do I. Its business model is considered by many—including, as I am sure the Minister will confirm, the Government—both unreasonable and unjustifiable. The offer of giving residents the opportunity to purchase the freehold at a fixed price of 26 times the annual ground rent is not, in my view—and, I hope, in the Government’s view—reasonable or fair.
In response to my letter, Redrow said:
“it would be inappropriate to move away from the practice that has been adopted over the last two years, with all Redrow households, including those [who] have already acquired their freehold at Summerhill Park.”
I wrote back to say that I did not agree and I would still like a meeting. Surprise, surprise, Redrow said, “There is little point in a meeting.” All Members of this House have a reasonable expectation that if they request a meeting with an organisation or company in the private or public sector to discuss an issue that is of concern in their constituency, they will get that meeting. Redrow arrogantly—not to me, but to the people I represent—declined to hold such a meeting. I deplore that, as I hope others do.
It is unjustified and unfair, and I fail to see how pressing on with that policy is either reasonable or acceptable. Redrow is doing this simply because it can and because it can continue to make money out of the residents I represent in this House. The leasehold scandal has caused a great deal of distress for homebuyers across England, particularly in the north-west, with many homebuyers trapped in their current properties, some unable to afford to purchase their freehold and others even unable to sell their property. Redrow is not unique in this. Other developers are just as involved in this scandal.

Mike Amesbury: I have a situation in the Winnington part of my constituency of Weaver Vale, where resident Emily Martin and many others are caught in this leasehold trap. In terms of the next phase, people have benefited from the reforms that we in this place have campaigned for, and the properties then become unsellable.

George Howarth: That adds to the unfairness of it. Redrow is not unique in this, and all these companies need to look at themselves, the business model they are adopting and the ethics involved.
I will conclude by asking the Minister three questions. First, may I invite her to join me in condemning Redrow and the other companies that are still involved in this practice? Does she agree that the freehold purchase cost of 10 times the ground rent is fair and reasonable, whereas 26 times is sheer daylight robbery? Finally, does she agree that it is desperately important that we have legislation to curtail the naked greed of those developers engaged in this disreputable practice?

Mark Francois: May I begin by congratulating the Minister on her appointment? It is good to see her in her place at the Dispatch Box.
The house building market in the United Kingdom is highly oligopolistic, dominated by very few very large players, some of whom are extremely unresponsive to the needs of local communities, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) laid out so well in her speech. They can have an adverse impact on communities in the long term, but they can also have an adverse impact in the short term, while their houses are being built.
We had an example of that in Rayleigh on Monday morning. The schools came back, so clearly the traffic increased, but it was massively exacerbated by three contraflows all in operation at the same time on three different housing developments: Barratt David Wilson at Hullbridge, where a nearby key road called Watery Lane  has been closed for many weeks because of the works; Countryside at Rawreth Lane in Rayleigh, which has a contraflow in place; and Silver City, a lesser known, smaller developer which has a contraflow on the London Road in Rayleigh. The cumulative effect, made worse by a road traffic accident that morning, was that the town was in effect gridlocked, and many of my constituents were extremely frustrated as they were simply trying to get to work.
I have remonstrated with the county council’s highways department for granting permits to work on the highway to all of these developers at the same time. It has a strategic overview of the highways network, and I think it should look at that again. I have also contacted all the developers directly, and encouraged them to get this work done as fast as possible and then get out of the way, and the responses have been instructive. The smallest, Silver City, has promised that it will be finished by the end of the week and that it will be off the highway network. Countryside, an Essex-based developer, has said that it will no longer operate its contraflow in the morning and evening rush hours, thus considerably easing the congestion.
Barratt David Wilson, the major national house builder, has been the least responsive of all. It has been on site since February, and my constituents in Hullbridge are just about sick and tired of it. As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has pointed out, its chief executive, Mr David Thomas, is on a nice little earner. According to its 2018 annual report, he earned a total package of just shy of £3 million—some 20 times the salary the Prime Minister earns for the responsibility of running the country. I suspect that Mr David Thomas could not find Hullbridge in my constituency with a TomTom.
Barratt David Wilson has now, under pressure, contemplated extending the hours of its work to try to finish the job, but it still will not give me a firm date for when its works will be completed, Watery Lane can be reopened and it will get out of the way. In short, it is a bad neighbour in my constituency, and I think it is about time that this large, unresponsive, uncaring national house builder, run by a fat cat on £3 million a year, was held to account. My constituents deserve better than this, and these developers should put more people on the job, get the job done quicker and get off the roadway.
We are tight for time, but in my last minute I want to mention Sanctuary Housing, the largest housing association in my constituency. I had an Adjournment debate on 18 July about what is wrong with it, so I shall not reiterate it all now, suffice it to say that I had a meeting with its chief executive, Mr Craig Moule, and its outgoing chairman, Mr Jonathan Lander, yesterday. It was a deeply unsatisfactory meeting. Basically, it had promised to build 50 affordable houses a year, but it got nowhere near that. It had no clear plan or strategy to achieve the target. I am afraid the outgoing chairman of the board clearly did not take the meeting seriously. In fact, his attitude was patronising. If he had said, “I hear what you say, Mr Francois” one more time, I think I would have screamed.
There is a governance issue at Sanctuary. It is badly run and badly governed. It is not properly accountable to the tenants it serves, which is why it was slated by “Dispatches” a few months ago. My plea to the Minister  is that we need tighter regulation of the registered social landlords market. Some of these are very large organisations indeed. They are not properly regulated by the Government, and Sanctuary is most certainly not properly regulated by its rather useless board.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. We really do need to keep aiming for the limit of five minutes, because I am sure that people will want to hear what the Minister has to say. She has been asked many questions, and the answers must be heard, too.

Stephen Timms: We are in the grip of a major housing crisis. You will not remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I can just remember “Cathy Come Home”, and the determination of our predecessors in the 1960s—this picks up on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) in her excellent opening speech—that the lives of families should not be destroyed by housing misery. Today, lives are being destroyed again. One day—sooner, I hope, rather than later—we will again need a major national programme of council house building to give those families a chance.
Last month I had the privilege of hosting a visit to my constituency by members of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on Housing, Church and Community. We had “Faith in the City” in the 1980s, “Unemployment and the Future of Work” in the 1990s, and both those Church reports caught the mood of  the times and profoundly influenced the policies of Governments. I hope that the Archbishop’s housing commission report will do the same when it is published. We visited a family in my constituency—mum, dad, and a young son—who are essentially living in one room in a ramshackle property above East Ham High Street. There is serious damp and a rat infestation. They have been there for five years, and both of the couple have been employed and were working in the NHS. Recently, a second child was born and, tragically, very soon died, probably because of the conditions in the home. That is how it is for thousands of people. After the visit, one commission member emailed me and commented, quite rightly, that our society should not tolerate people having to live in such conditions.
I was delighted to take the commission members to the Didsbury site, where Newham Council’s own developer, Red Door Ventures, which was set up in 2014, is building new homes on council land that was previously occupied by a community centre. It is committed to building 50% of its homes for social rent, and 50% at market rent, and it plans to build hundreds of homes over the next few years—thousands, I hope, before too long.
As my hon. Friend reminded the House, after world war two, social housing was built at a rate of well over 100,000 homes a year. The crisis today is just as bad as it was then, and we need that scale of ambition to deliver such a programme again. There is no time to lose.

Andrew Lewer: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank the hon. Member  for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this debate. I have spent much of my working life taking an interest in this core topic, and after becoming a Member of Parliament, housing has continued to be a passion of mine. I have been involved with the housing sector since I served on a planning committee for 12 years, and then as leader of Derbyshire County Council and director of a housing association. As an MP, I sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and I chair the all-party group for SME house builders. In both roles, I have had the pleasure of working with people from across the private and social housing sectors. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) has made fantastic progress in championing self-build homes, and I hope he has continued success in that area.
Another area of success can be seen in the excellent work of Northampton Partnership Homes. Its chairman, David Latham, and chief executive, Mike Kay, have laid out ambitious plans for the future of social housing and tackling homelessness in my constituency, but national support from the Government, and local support,  will be required to get those plans advanced. I have  been encouraged by the Government’s commitment of £1.2 billion funding to tackle homelessness through to 2020, and by the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. I know that has been hugely beneficial in Northampton, and I hope it can help to get people back on their feet and with a roof over their head. Is there more to do? Of course there is, and I look forward to hearing about that from the Minister.
I was pleased to meet Sir Edward Lister, in his then capacity of chairman of Homes England, at a recent meeting of my all-party group. I was thoroughly impressed by what he said and I was encouraged by the approach he had been taking. It felt like there has been a shift and a change of culture at Homes England, or at least the start of a shift. The change needs to be seen primarily in money allocated by Ministers going to where it is needed most and by SME housebuilders getting that access. The sector does not feel that it is anywhere near as straightforward yet as it should be for SMEs in particular.
I am encouraged by the steps and the commitments the Government have already taken in this area, but I hope my right hon. Friend will make reference to, and address how, money from Homes England will get not only to the private and the social sectors, but to the shared ownership housing sector, a sector with a lot more potential than it has yet been able to realise.

Justin Madders: Week in, week out housing problems are the No.1 issue in my constituency surgeries: a lack of affordable housing, poor living conditions, homelessness or landlords not acting to rectify problems. We should not forget that at the heart of this debate are real people facing very real difficulties because over the past nine years the Government have failed to act to tackle the housing crisis. I have too many people coming to see me who are sleeping on couches, in tents or in cars. That situation is becoming far too regular in my surgeries. It is an absolute disgrace.
Since the Government came into power, rents have become increasingly unaffordable, with private renters spending on average 41% of their household income on  rent. Shelter reports that a third of low-income renters are struggling to the extent that they have to borrow money to pay their rent and keep a roof over their heads. In those circumstances, putting money aside to save for a deposit so they can eventually own their own home is completely unrealistic. There is a massive job ahead of us to replenish the depleted housing stock in this country and I am pleased to see that, after many years of stagnation, there is now significant housebuilding in my constituency, particularly on brownfield sites. Very few, however, have affordable housing in them—or, as I would like to call it, council housing. That is because permissions were all granted some time ago and the developers have used rules brought in under the coalition Government to plead poverty and tell us that the requirement to build affordable homes means they cannot maintain their 20% profit margins. As a result, there is no affordable housing being built on just about any private development in my constituency. Most developers sought release from those obligations four or five years ago, but have only started building them in the past couple of years. It is clear that the affordable housing requirements were not what was stopping them; it was greed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) set out, it certainly has not harmed their profit margins.
It is greed that has poisoned many of the public’s opinion of the housebuilding industry as a result of the leasehold scandal. As the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), said about the voluntary scheme developers introduced to deal with some of the injustices of the scandal:
“Given the evidence we heard from leaseholders during our inquiry, we know it will be difficult for them to trust developers and freeholders to deliver on such pledges.”
The only way trust can be rebuilt is for there to be a full, independent public inquiry to get to the root of the issues. How did developers first dream up the business model of commoditising people’s homes? How did lawyers draw up the onerous terms? How did sales staff present, or not present, the leases? How did the conveyancers, surveyors and lenders all miss the implications of them? How has the Government’s Help to Buy cash propped up the whole scam?
The news this week that Persimmon has reached an out of court settlement on an estate in Cardiff by giving the homeowners the freeholds and repaying the ground rent is welcome, but unfortunately that is just one estate, in one city and one developer. There must be scores of identical scenarios around the country where developers have not been forced to come to the table, so a proper PPI-style compensation scheme is vital. As I have said in the past, this is the PPI of the housebuilding industry and it needs to be treated as such. The admission by Persimmon that people did not know what they were buying should flag up huge alarm bells for every developer involved in leasehold that time is running out for them to put this right.
The National Leasehold Campaign has this week written to all developers involved in the scam to ask for the freeholds back. They should do it now and start to rebuild trust. As we know from the profit margins we have heard about, they can well afford to do it. The fact that they are still building homes on estates where there  is no leasehold now, but where people who bought them a year or two ago are still in leasehold properties, is an absolutely injustice and a scandal. It needs to end.
It really is time that we had real action from the Government, so that those already trapped in unfair leases can expect to be released from them. I think we all agree that the situation is unfair and a significant injustice, but what are we going to do to force developers to put things right? There are plenty of ideas out there about how we can do that for those stuck with existing onerous and unfair leases. The Government may have lost control of the Chamber, but if they made proposals along the lines set out in my private Member’s Bill, for example, or in my party’s proposals, there is no doubt that there would be more than enough support on both sides of the House to get something on the statute book that would bring real, tangible change to help people and get many of the thousands who are stuck in toxic leases free of that obligation at last. Let us make a real difference to people’s lives. Let us pass these laws and build the homes that we need to get this country moving again.

Ruth Cadbury: I thank the previous speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for his excellent speech on leasehold issues. He is such an expert—as ever—because he has such  a problem in his area, but that is not unique and we  have some of the same issues in London with flatted developments.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for the excellent work that she has been doing on this important issue and for securing this debate. I am not sure whether it is a relief to discuss something other than Brexit, but this is as much, if not more, of a crisis, certainly for those who are affected.
In my maiden speech, I referred to my forebears, who recognised the importance of good-quality housing for people’s wellbeing, lives and, I have to say, their productivity in their factory. My forebears built good-quality, affordable housing until the state took on that responsibility. From the ’40s onwards, Governments of both persuasions built tens of thousands of council homes a year to ensure that the British people were adequately housed, but we have been walking away from that in the last 10 or more years.
For most of my political life, I was a councillor in Hounslow. Even in outer London until about 10 years ago, a family on an ordinary income could afford to buy their own home, so they did not need social rented housing. They did not put additional pressure on council housing. Since house prices have increased, however, people need a household income of £72,000 in Hounslow to buy even a two-bedroom flat, yet the average household income is £40,000.
We need 1.2 million new council and social rented homes in this country because that is the number of households on the housing needs register. That does not count people who are not disabled and working-age adults who have to rent. The number of people in that category has gone up 100% in just over 10 years. Under  the right to buy, most councils, including even those that are building housing—Hounslow is building about 400 new council homes a year—are losing council homes faster than they are building them. Right to buy homes are often becoming private rented stock at three times the council rent levels.
Of course, we need house builders to be on our side. As others have mentioned so eloquently, they need to address the leasehold issue. They also need to take responsibility for the shocking faults in many new-build properties. There is variation between developers, and they cannot hide behind the fact that there is a skills shortage. There is one and they need to take responsibility for it, but so do the Government, because much of the skills shortage in construction results from the fact that a large proportion of our construction workforce are EU nationals and many are leaving, or are no longer coming in the same numbers because of the uncertainty that has been mentioned many times in this Chamber. They do not feel welcome and do not have security as workers in this country.
I am sure that the Minister will respond with warm and hopeful words, as Ministers always do. The new Government may even intend to do something significant about the housing crisis, although I suspect that they will not be around for long enough to implement anything. I advise them, however, not to fall into having the problems that some previous Ministers have had. This includes the risk of unintended consequences of poorly thought-out policies. I will mention two of them.
Let us have no more schemes, such as Help to Buy, that just give discounts to those who can afford to buy anyway. Let us not rush through planning changes such as those to permitted development rights, which have allowed the appalling chicken coops in old factories and offices, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden.

Alex Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing the debate through the Backbench Business Committee. She is right to highlight these issues. Surely, in this world of inequality, individuals should not be lining their own pockets with millions of pounds in bonuses taken from taxpayers’ money. Our focus needs to be on all our people, not just the few. Other Members raised the issue of leasehold. I invite the Minister to solve the crisis by adopting our approach to leasehold.
A home is at the heart of our lives. It is the foundation on which we grow up and raise our own families—the bedrock for our dreams and aspirations. It helps us to belong and shapes who we are and what we do. Yet, as others have said, we have a housing crisis in our country. We all know it, but successive Ministers seem to have had little motivation to do anything about it. There has been a steady rise in homelessness, in rough sleeping and in hidden homelessness—people or families who are considered homeless but whose situation is not visible—either on the streets or in official statistics, with those forced into the world of sofa surfing, living in make- shift rooms in overcrowded dwellings, or maybe even in a car. That was also highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). It is not a situation fit for 21st-century Britain.
When Labour left office, housing was at the heart of our decision making: we had just pulled the country back from the cliff edge of the global recession; we had just switched funding from other Departments to deliver the biggest investment in social housing in a generation; and we had just protected people’s homes with Labour’s mortgage rescue scheme, which, along with other actions, meant that repossessions were over a third lower than in 1991, when Tory inaction led to 75,000 homes being repossessed. Over the whole 13 years that Labour spent in power, home ownership soared. Since then the number of home-owning households has fallen under the Tories. Under Labour, the number rose by over 1 million. House building grew. We built almost 2 million homes. After years of high homelessness under the Tories, Labour cut it by 62%. We brought over 1 million homes up to standard as part of our decent homes programme.
Since 2010, however, the number of new social rented homes has fallen by over 95%, and we are now building 30,000 fewer social rented homes each year; house building still has not recovered to the level it was at before the global financial crisis; the overall level of home ownership has fallen since 2010, from 67% to 64% last year; average private rents have risen by £1,900 a year; and—something that should shame us all—in the sixth biggest economy in the world, we have seen rough sleeping more than double over the past nine years.
After nearly a decade of failure, it is clear that the Conservatives have no credible plan to build the number of homes we need. Labour will draw a line under the failure of the past and put building new homes at the heart of government. For the first time ever, a Labour Government will establish a fully-fledged department for housing. Ministers will be challenged at each step by a new Office for Budget Responsibility-style office for housing delivery, which will be an independent auditor of house building projections, delivery plans and progress against Government targets. We will set the new department a target of building at least 1 million new, genuinely affordable homes in England over 10 years, including a major council house building programme. We will bring forward more land for development at a lower price, by setting a new role for the Homes and Communities Agency as the Government’s main housing delivery body, and we will protect the green belt.
We will introduce a revolutionary new type of housing, “first buy homes”, with housing costs for new build homes benchmarked at a third of local average incomes so that homes are priced at what local people can afford, not what makes developers the most money. We will also introduce a tough “first dibs” rule on new housing developments to give local people confidence that homes built in their area can be for them and their families. Developers will be forced to market new homes to local first-time buyers first, not to overseas buyers or those with no connection to the area. We will act on those 750,000 empty plots that are sitting doing nothing and bring them into use.
Some may question what exactly we can do to tackle homelessness. Last week I visited St Mungo’s and learned about its initiatives to help reduce the impact of homelessness, including “no second night out”. I also visited AKT—formerly the Albert Kennedy Trust—and heard directly from some young LGBT people who had experienced homelessness, and who told me what housing support they needed. Organisations such as St Mungo’s and AKT do excellent work in supporting people who  need help, and they truly set an example of what can be achieved with vision and passion. Any Government could learn much from both those organisations.
Ultimately, this comes back to the availability of housing stock. We cannot provide people with decent, affordable homes if we simply do not have the stock. We need to build, and build fast. However, we cannot compromise on quality or affordability. It means very little for thousands of new homes to spring up in an area if the people who live in that area cannot afford them.
Rental costs should not account for two thirds of tenants’ incomes, and it is on social housing that we must focus to address the housing crisis. Labour has already made a commitment to stop the sell-off of 50,000 social rented homes a year by suspending the right to buy, and to transform the planning system with a new duty to deliver affordable homes in order to make more land available more cheaply. Councils are not adequately staffed to oversee planning applications, and the industry does not have the skills and innovation to deliver what we need. Labour will ensure that both councils and the industry have what they require.
Everyone should have a safe place that they can call home, but that is so often not the case. A young person may not be able to return to the family home because he or she is at risk of harm. An older person may not be able to go upstairs safely, and may therefore need a different type of accommodation. A survivor of domestic violence may need somewhere safe to rebuild his or her life. A family may be sleeping in a car because it is cleaner, and perhaps safer, than temporary accommodation. I am thinking of some of the destroyed families referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).
Successive Tory Governments have failed all those people. It is time that we had a Labour Government putting housing front and centre, putting right the failures, and sorting out the crisis that so many face today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said, we have done it before and we will do it again.

Esther McVey: I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for bringing the debate to the Floor of the House and I thank everyone who has contributed to it.
There has been much agreement across the Floor on what we would like to happen, and, more important, what we do not like the look of and is not the way forward. None of us can agree with the exorbitant pay packets that some people have received. We are also all agreed that—in the hon. Lady’s words—the market is not working. That is right: it is not. We might have different ways of resolving that problem, but we would say that, if there are not enough houses in the market, it is not working. Various implementation schemes should operate for a short period, until we have ensured that there are more houses in the market, and that is what we are doing.
It has been a scandal how fewer houses have been built decade after decade, but we are turning that around. Let us look at some of the figures. We have delivered more than 1.3 million new homes since 2010, including more than 430,000 affordable homes. In the most recent  year, we have delivered more than 220,000 additional homes, the highest level in all but one of the last 31 years. The latest indicators show that we are on track to meet our 2015 manifesto commitment to add 1 million more homes by 2020.
Those who have talked about homelessness will be heartened to learn that, for the first time since 2010, the annual rough sleeping statistics have shown a decrease in the number of those sleeping rough. That reflects the Government’s substantial investment and support over the last few years. But what we want to see is the right houses being built; choice in who is building them; and an SME market, not just a market of the top four or five in the building sector. We as a Conservative Government want to bring back the SMEs; 30% were lost during the financial crash and never came back. We want those businesses back and, more importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) said, we want there to be the right to build: we want to be able to make sure there are not just a few companies, building thousands of homes, because there could be thousands of individuals making their own homes. That is what we are about: choice and opportunity as we go forward.
We have said we would deliver 300,000 homes by the mid-2020s. That is my ambition and the ambition of the Conservative party. How will we go about it? I have said that we have been delivering more each year, but we want to bring together a centre of excellence for construction and engineering in the north of the country. We want to have a global leader for construction and engineering, bringing forth those technological solutions we have been talking about such as modern methods of construction and environmental innovations in the housing market.
However, let me pick up on some of the things we do not want that many Members talked about. I want to work with the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth), the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer). We do not want to see the misuse of leaseholds and the exorbitant costs people are paying. We have brought a consultation forward. We are going to stop the misuse and the bad practices in that field, and we can work on that together from both sides of the House, because we should not have that and we do not want it, and we have already started on that course to make sure it does not happen.

George Howarth: I am grateful for that response. Will the right hon. Lady, therefore, join me in condemning companies such as Redrow for being unwilling to even discuss what residents want?

Esther McVey: Companies and businesses should work towards what their purchasers and customers want. Therefore, they should be listening if they want to be the best company they can possibly be. Equally, we are listening as Members of Parliament. We have all shone a light on that bad practice and we will be taking that issue forward.
We are also looking at what housing associations are doing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has brought forward what  is happening with Sanctuary Housing. We have a  Green Paper setting out the principles that will underpin a new fairer deal for social housing residents: safe and decent homes, swift and effective resolution of disputes, empowering residents and ensuring their voices are heard.
Although we talk about the industry, we really want to support the people who are living in those houses; we are talking about homes, safety and security. We do not want people in temporary accommodation. We do not want people to be homeless; we want them in permanent accommodation, and that can only be brought about by fixing the market and making sure we build more homes, which is what we are doing.

Mike Amesbury: Weaver Vale Housing Trust covers my area as well as the Minister’s. It has real concerns about the lack of clarity on funding going forward. She mentioned social housing; the key is to build more social and affordable housing. There is not clarity at present, so we are not building the numbers of homes that we need.

Esther McVey: We are and will be building more affordable homes. We have put in a significant amount—billions of pounds—for affordable homes and have also removed the cap so councils are able to build homes, too. That is what we have to do. We are a party that believes in choice. I come from a council house. I believed in the right to buy in the 1980s to make sure people could be in charge of their own home. Homes were not being repaired properly. People bought them and looked after them. Now we have to make sure we build more homes, so there is a virtuous cycle and there are more homes. We are a nation that believes in home ownership. We need to enable people to have their own homes. We know that 80% of people want their own home. What are we doing? We want to offer an array of choice and support. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said, this is also about the ability of individuals to build their own homes.

Alex Cunningham: Home ownership under the Tories in the past nine years has dropped from 67% to 64%. How is the Minister going to put that right?

Esther McVey: Through an array of support. Obviously, I have been heartened by the fact that first-time ownership has increased for the first time in 11 years. People are getting on the housing ladder. We have helped more than 500,000 people through Help to Buy and the right to buy, and we intend to continue to do that.

Richard Bacon: May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the £25 billion a year housing benefit budget, which represents 3% of all public spending? It will be £0.25 trillion over the next 10 years, and it has been £0.5 trillion over the past 20 years or so. The permanent secretary in her former Department, Peter Schofield, who used to be the director of communities in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, came with us to Berlin to look at more creative and innovative ways of delivering housing. May I suggest that my right hon. Friend talks to the Department for Work and Pensions about trying to use some of that housing benefit budget —admittedly it is helping some housing associations,  but it is also propping up private landlords—for  capital investment in a greater quantity and quality of housing stock?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that that is exactly what we intend to do. How do we enable people to get on the housing ladder and to be homeowners in an array of homes they would like and need? How do we best use housing benefits to enable that to happen? As I have said, we have built more homes in this last year than in every one of the last 31 years. We are correcting a market that has been undeniably not supported for the last 31 years. We are getting it right. We have built more houses. Where we see the misuse of leaseholds, we will gett rid of that. We will be supporting people with an array of opportunities.

Ruth Cadbury: With due respect to the Minister, I think that the hon. Member for South Norfolk was talking about the housing benefit bill, which is not relevant to people who can buy their own homes. He was saying that that money would be far better spent on building affordable social rent homes for people who will never be able to buy their own home. Meanwhile, the Help to Buy programme has simply increased the price of flats in London.

Esther McVey: I did understand what my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk was talking about. He talked about the £24 billion that was going into housing benefit and asked how we could best use that to help to build more homes, which could include social and council homes. I understand that but, at the same time, we have to ensure that more people can get on the housing ladder.
We are at the start of building 300,000 homes a year. That is not just about the homes; it is about reshaping an industry. At the same time, we want to be a global visionary centre of expertise in building. Let us think about all the jobs that that will provide, if we have the commitment to do it together. That is why we will have a centre of excellence in the north of England to look at the best ways forward for construction and engineering. That is what a determined Conservative party is going to do. We are going to build the right houses, champion home ownership and make a centre of excellence for building.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. In the few seconds I have left, I want to ask that we ban the word “affordable” in the context of housing. “Affordable” means 80% of market rent, but the vast proportion of our constituents could never afford 80% of market rent. Let us talk about social housing rent and owner occupation, but let us also clearly address the question of what is affordable, because the “affordable housing” is not affordable.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes with concern the ongoing shortage of housing and the housing crisis across England; further notes with concern the number of families in temporary accommodation and the number of people rough sleeping; acknowledges that there are over one million households on housing waiting lists; recognises the Government’s target to build 300,000 new homes each year; acknowledges that this target has been missed in each year that the Government has been in office and that the number of homes constructed by housebuilding companies that are deemed affordable is insufficient; notes the pay ratios between executives and employees in FTSE 350 housebuilding companies; and calls on the Government to tackle the housing crisis as an urgent priority.

SKERNE RIVER: DISCOVER BRIGHTWATER PROJECT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

Phil Wilson: I want to take this time to talk about a heritage and environmental project in my constituency that will over the next few years restore, reveal and celebrate life along the River Skerne. The river flows through the length of my constituency before reaching the River Tees at Hurworth Place after flowing through Darlington. Unlike the vast majority of rivers, it flows inland instead of running to the sea. The Skerne is not widely known, expect perhaps to local people. It is not the Thames, the Wear, the Tees or the Tyne, and it is not the Severn or the Tweed. In parts it resembles a stream and can be seen in geographical terms as a tributary of the Tees, but the Skerne’s significance can be measured in other ways.
The Skerne is the only river to appear on the back of a five-pound note. The note in question was issued in 1993 to celebrate the success of the railway pioneer George Stephenson and includes an image of Locomotion No. 1 travelling across the Skerne bridge over the river. The bridge is almost 200 years old and is the oldest continuously used railway bridge in the world. Historic England called the bridge irreplaceable, along with the Angel of the North and Holy Island off Lindisfarne. The bridge is in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), but the early trains that crossed the Skerne at this point first travelled from Heighington Crossing in my constituency of Sedgefield, of which more later.
That link to the industrial revolution is the reason why the Discover Brightwater project is necessary. The project is a £3.3 million landscape partnership programme supported by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. To date, about £7.6 billion has been spent on improving landscapes and preserving heritage in programmes like this around the country. The Discover Brightwater project focuses on improving the natural and cultural environment endeavours to work with community groups to discover and reveal the history of the area, improve existing environments, and create new nature reserves for the benefit of wildlife and land users. The Brightwater partnership includes Durham Wildlife Trust, Durham County Council, Darlington Borough Council, the Environment Agency, the Tees River Trust, the local access forum, and the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland—known as “Arch & Arch”.
“Skerne” is an ancient word, which is believed to originate from the old Norse word “skir” meaning “bright” and “clean”, hence the name of the Discover Brightwater project. Many years ago, the Skerne was full of fens and wetlands, hence the name of my constituency and the nearest town of Sedgefield. The wetlands still exist in part, but land has been reclaimed for farming since the start of the industrial revolution and water was pumped away due to the growth of the coal industry. Experts believe that the water table fell by as much as 70 metres, so the fens and wetlands are not what they used to be. Names of ancient settlements reveal what the area was like centuries ago. The name Sedgefield is a case in point, as is Bradbury and the Isle,  Great Isle farm, and the term “carr” meaning a boggy area or wood in old Norse, which is why we have Preston Carr and Mordon Carr.
The Brightwater Project is important because it wants to manage the local environment and restore the Skerne to some of its past glory. There are plans to create fenland covering 50 acres, which would include the existing Bishop fen near Bishop Middleham and Hardwick Park, and the Woodham fen near Newton Aycliffe. The idea behind creating a managed fen is to spread biodiversity, mitigate climate change and attract tourism. There is also a potential plan to significantly increase the size of the fen to create a Great North fen. Since the end of the industrial revolution and the coal-mining era, the landscape has wanted to return to the way it once was, and that should be allowed to happen, but obviously in a managed way that has the support of landowners, Government agencies and local people. The project is not only about the past. It is about the present and revealing the natural environment and heritage for residents living in this part of south-east Durham, and it is about the future. It is about making south-east Durham a place to visit. There is so much to see and enjoy but, at present, so much remains hidden, with so many stories untold.
Let me take the House on a journey along the 25 miles of the river, which finds its source near Trimdon, the village where I was brought up, and then flows inland to Hurworth Place, which is also in my constituency and is where the Skerne enters the River Tees. The River Skerne starts in the magnesium limestone escarpment between Trimdon and Trimdon Grange in the north of my constituency, just a few hundred metres from the 12th-century St Mary Magdalene church on Trimdon village green, which is the spot where my predecessor, Tony Blair, made his “people’s princess” speech in 1997 following the tragic death of Diana.
During the 19th century, the population of Trimdon expanded rapidly with the opening of the colliery. The importance of the industry to the area helped turn the Skerne from a bright water to the seventh most polluted river in Europe by the 1970s. That is why the Discover Brightwater project is vital to bringing the river back to its former beauty.
The Trimdons grew from the coal industry and supplied the industrial revolution, with collieries at Trimdon Grange, where a pit disaster in 1882 killed 74 men and boys, and at Trimdon and Deaf Hill, as well as a foundry at a place called, strangely enough, Trimdon Foundry.
From there, the River Skerne flows to the east and Hurworth Burn reservoir before meandering south-west, where it enters fertile fields and farmland. The river flows between the village of Fishburn and the market town of Sedgefield. Fishburn is where my mother was born, and my father worked down Fishburn colliery from the ’40s until its closure in 1973. A coke works also operated in the village from 1919 to ’86.
At their peak, the collieries in the Skerne river area —at the Trimdons, Deaf Hill, Fishburn, Dean Bank, Bishop Middleham and Mainsforth—employed almost 10,000 people. Again, the growth of the villages led to pollution of the river, and phosphates used by local farmers washed from the farmland into the river, causing further pollution.
On the opposite bank from the old colliery is the north-east technology park—NETPark—which is one of the country’s premier science, engineering and technology parks for the commercialisation of cutting-edge research and development. It is home to 32 innovative companies, providing over 450 highly skilled jobs. By 2025, NETPark will be not only the destination of choice but the destination of necessity for universities and blue chip companies.
This area on the banks of the Skerne has the remains of a once great industry on one side and flourishing future industries on the other. It is the centre of the constituency.
As part of the Discover Brightwater project, there have been archaeological digs involving 126 dedicated volunteers on the outskirts of Sedgefield, where remains of a Roman village and pottery have been discovered—the first Roman pottery to be discovered in the north-east. The Discover Brightwater team has been working with DigVentures of Barnard Castle at the East Park Roman site in Sedgefield and at the ruins of the Bishop’s “castle” in Bishop Middleham a couple of miles away. The discovery of further structures at the site of the Bishop’s “castle”, which was used by the bishops of Durham, has led archaeologists to believe there were once more substantial buildings than previously thought. This is making archaeologists think again about what was originally at the site of the castle.
From Bishop Middleham and Sedgefield, the Skerne flows through Bradbury and the Isle, an area of wetland through which the A1(M) and the east coast main line travel between Durham and Darlington. It is the geographic heart of my constituency. Because of the wetland, the motorway actually floats on the land.
From there, the Skerne travels past Newton Aycliffe and through Ketton, an ancient area of my constituency that is a broad valley created by the small Skerne river. One feature of the Ketton landscape is a 17th-century packhorse bridge, which stands alone because centuries ago farmers straightened the river, moving its flow from under the bridge. It stands alone as a listed structure. There is written evidence of a bridge at the site since 1294.
The area is also famous for the Durham ox, a massive beast that in 1810 sold for £1,000 and weighed 271 stone. It was a bit of a celebrity in its day and travelled 3,000 miles around the country to be exhibited.
The Discover Brightwater project has improved the River Skerne in the Ketton area from Aycliffe to Skerningham, with the help of volunteers and local communities. The project also wants to improve access to Ketton Valley, so that people can enjoy the beauty of the landscape and the heritage of the Skerne and learn of the many local historical stories that go unheard.
From Ketton, we reach Newton Aycliffe, which is the largest conurbation in my constituency. It is a new town with a population of around 28,000 people, and is home to the Discover Brightwater headquarters. Newton Aycliffe business park is the biggest in the north-east of England, with 10,000 to 12,000 employees.
Newton Aycliffe also played a crucial part during the second world war. It was the site of a Royal Ordnance factory known as ROF Aycliffe. Opened in 1941, at a cost of £7 million, the munitions factory was home to the famous “Aycliffe Angels”, one of whom was my   grandmother. The 17,000 strong workforce of almost entirely female employees worked around the clock turning out 700 million bullets, as well as shells and mines for the allied war effort. Their work was dangerous, with numerous accidents and deaths at the factory, including one explosion that killed eight girls. However, those incidents went unrecorded and unacknowledged because of the secrecy of the site. The Aycliffe Angels finally received the recognition they deserved for their commitment and bravery in 2000, with a memorial service and a permanent memorial, which now rests in Newton Aycliffe town centre.
However, the factory’s essential and invaluable work produced pollutants that ended up in the Skerne.
On the very edge of the business park sits Heighington Crossing and beside it a building that was once a pub called the Locomotion, now closed for several years. The pub was called the Locomotion to commemorate the fact that it was at Heighington Crossing in September 1825 that George Stephenson assembled Locomotion No. 1 to enter service on the Stockton and Darlington Railway. The route would eventually take the latest invention on the Skerne bridge over the Skerne river, marking the start of the railway age, which would eventually be celebrated on the reverse of the £5 note. The pub the Locomotion is the original ticket office and waiting room. The original very short platform is still there today, and the route of the railway line from Heighington down into Darlington is still used.
On the other side of the railway line, Hitachi has built its new train manufacturing facility. From the original Locomotion No. 1 to the latest high-speed intercity Azuma train, train manufacturing has come full circle, back to the birthplace of the railways.
The length of the River Skerne is steeped in history. Much of it might be unknown, but the Brightwater project provides the opportunity for that history to be known. It also provides the opportunity for the river to return to its original meaning of “bright water”. There are signs of that happening, with sightings of otters and trout in parts of the river where they have not been seen for a long time.
After decades of the industrial revolution, the landscape is starting to return to how it once was. Obviously, that process must be managed. However, the benefits of such a project speak for themselves: biodiversity, the mitigation of climate change, the potential for tourism, the preservation of our heritage, with benefits for the local area and the country, and the coming together of our communities as Brightwater engages with them. The Skerne has perhaps been neglected for centuries, but it could now be about to tell its story again. I wish the Discover Brightwater project the best of luck in its endeavour.

Rebecca Pow: It is an honour to respond to an Adjournment debate under your auspices again, Dame Eleanor.
I thank the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) so much for bringing the debate to the Chamber. It struck me how much we learn about our nation and our colleagues through the things that are said in this Chamber. I was fascinated to hear all about the Skerne river. The hon. Gentleman took us on a great journey down a  river that I knew little about before he started, but I now know a great deal about it—and about the hon. Gentleman’s life and roots. I am very pleased to be here talking about the subject today.
I have been to Sedgefield because my son is at Durham University and we stayed in Sedgefield only recently. If I had only known about the pub, I would have gone for a beer. I would say that most people know Sedgefield only for the racecourse, but now we will be talking about the river.
As Minister for Arts, Heritage and Tourism, it is of real interest to me to talk about the Discover Brightwater project, which will restore an important area of the north-east and bring wealth and benefits to the surrounding communities. Although it is still at a relatively early stage, it highlights how important projects that build on tourism and heritage can be to the local economy.
Let me say a little about tourism, which is a huge industry for the nation. As Minister, I see it as one of my roles to make sure it becomes even more important, and I know I have support on the Government Benches in that respect. Tourism already contributes £68 billion directly to the UK economy each year. Inbound tourism has risen in the past three years, and in 2018 more than 37 million people visited the country and spent a phenomenal £22 billion. That is not to be overlooked.
Visitors are spread far and wide throughout the country and travel to all parts of our nation—all regions and areas—so tourism is a good way to spread wealth. Whether they go to England’s coast, to historic cities, to the highlands of Scotland, to the glens of Antrim or to castles in Wales, there is all sorts to attract them. Indeed, there are also our natural landscapes, whether it is the Somerset levels in my constituency of Taunton Deane, the Yorkshire dales or the North York moors national park just beyond the boundaries of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Tourism creates jobs in every local authority in the country, and the money that visitors spend directly supports local economies and benefits communities. It also creates great opportunities for investment and growth. Indeed, in the north-east the benefits have already been felt, to a great extent: international visits have hit new heights in the past five years, and visitors have spent a great deal of money, with £300 million spent in 2018. That is not insignificant.
I am of course fully aware of the importance of the UK’s unique and far-reaching heritage offer and the key role it plays in attracting visitors up and down the country, helping to drive tourism. Visitors travel in their thousands to see outstanding heritage sites such as Fountains Abbey and Belsay Hall—both in the north-east—or Wells cathedral and Glastonbury tor, both down in Somerset. There is a plethora of wonderful sites to choose from.
Heritage makes a big contribution to the economy: the heritage sector alone brings in £29 billion of the £68 billion that tourism attracts, and it employs 450,000 people. Heritage tourists made more than 230 million visits in 2018. I am well aware of the part that heritage plays, and we heard from the hon. Gentleman lots of examples of how heritage is part of the Discover Brightwater project.
If one builds around heritage, pride rises in the community. I recently responded to a debate in Westminster Hall about Hull, which has been a city of culture.  All the investment in the culture and heritage in that city has meant that pride in the city has risen, and three out of every four people in Hull are now very proud to live there. Apparently, that was not the case a few years ago. A lot of that is because of the work to build on the projects in which people have been engaged.
For all those reasons I was very interested to hear about the Discover Brightwater project, to which the National Lottery Heritage Fund, with which my Department enjoys a close relationship, committed £2.64 million of spending in spring 2018. As we have heard, the project brings together a partnership of local bodies and charities, all working to restore and reveal the considerably rich industrial and agricultural heritage along the length of the river. I was really interested to hear about the collieries and that side of things, as well as the armaments factory and the archaeological digs.
I wish to touch on a couple of the treasures that are already in this patch. One is the Stockton and Darlington railway, which was the first public railway in the world to use steam locomotives. It was opened in 1825 and connected the collieries with the port of Stockton-on-Tees. It crossed the River Skerne at Darlington on the impressive Skerne bridge, which is the oldest continuously operated railway bridge in existence—I have definitely learned something there. It was indeed on a stamp, and because the bridge was on the stamp, so too was the river, so it is already quite famous.
Then there is that amazing beast, the Durham ox, which we have heard about—an early example of the shorthorn cattle breed that helped to establish breed standards in the dairy industry. This matter is close to my heart, as I was brought up on a dairy farm where my father bred Ayrshire cattle, which I used to show with him at the local shows. Such examples are a really important part of our history that went on to influence our agricultural industry. The Discover Brightwater programme will build on that project to help interpret and share those stories, and I think it will be very popular.
I was pleased to learn about the wider community involvement and traineeships that are part of this project, including 20 short heritage skills courses and lots of community-led research. All these things chime very well with the tourism sector deal that we launched recently. I will mention that a bit more in a minute.
As a great lover of the great outdoors, I was especially glad to hear that the project will open up access to green spaces. I was also pleased to hear about the community involvement. Of course, access to green open space provides rewards for our mental health and physical wellbeing. There is a lot of data to show that access to green space can really help in those areas. The project is near some quite deprived areas, which often do not have such good access to green space, so I see it as being really beneficial there.
In a world where sustainability and the environment are increasingly important, I was glad to hear about the wider environmental benefits of the project, particularly with regards to improving water quality. We heard how terribly polluted the river was before, and that the situation has really been turned around. I was very interested to hear about the former wetland, and the work to alleviate flooding and strengthen the nature-rich habitats. All this work will be a draw to visitors, as I  know from experience because I come from the Somerset levels area—one of the world’s most famous international wetland sites. The area is really popular for tourists because of all the nature and wildlife it attracts. We have already heard that the otters and trout have returned to the River Skerne, which is absolutely wonderful, especially when one thinks of how polluted it was before. There has been a real turnaround and I think it will be a big draw.
I gather that the project will also open up better access, as well as cycle routes, walkways and walking routes, all of which I am sure will be popular. For lots of those reasons, I commend the Discover Brightwater project and other similar examples around the country, because they build on strengths such as heritage, working with communities and developing our already attractive areas, and make a great deal more of them. Tourism is a growing industry, with the number of international visitors set to rise, and we need to be ready for them with a good offer once we attract them here. That offer has to be of the highest calibre, and that means not just the attractions, but the accommodation—places for the people to stay, just as I stayed in Sedgefield—as well as the provenance of the food and drink. All these things can be built into the project, together with working on the prized landscape. The River Skerne project offers all this potential.
The £40 million Discover England fund, which was launched in 2016, demonstrated that this Government are committed to investing in the country’s visitor offer, making it as easy as possible for travellers to discover the variety and range that England has to offer. I will give a couple of examples. The England’s Coast project allows visitors to build itineraries and experiences based on England’s glorious coastal offer. We have a fabulous coast and fabulous beaches. In the north-east, that includes the Durham heritage coast—I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows it well—and the historic seaside resorts of Redcar and Saltburn-by-the-Sea. The Discover England fund is not the only way the Government have invested in tourism in the north-east either. Earlier this year, the coastal communities fund awarded £1.3 million to the Durham heritage coast partnership to create a visitor and events hub at Crimdon beach.
Those projects, and indeed all those supported by the Discover England fund and other funds in the past three years, illustrate the Government’s commitment to tourism in regions all around the country. I particularly welcome the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday, which I was pleased to play a small part in, of another £5.5 million for the Discover England fund, which will enable it to carry on for the next year and, we hope, for a long time into the future. These projects demonstrate how well they work and what they can generate for the economy.
The Chancellor also announced an excellent deal yesterday for our arm’s length bodies, which include the Arts Council, which dispenses funds around the country for projects, and all our museums and galleries, all of which play a part in our visitor and heritage offer and attract many visitors. That was a really welcome announcement in the spending round yesterday.
The tourism sector deal, which was launched in June, is a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to the tourism industry and its potential for boosting productivity and ensuring that we are ready for the extra visitors we are expecting. It was the 10th sector deal  that the Government have announced, and it includes a raft of measures that the whole industry came to agree were important to grow the industry. Those measures include a £250,000 conference centre broadband competition so that events and conference centres can bid for money to improve the connectivity of their conference centres. That is a big and growing sector with a lot of opportunity. I am not sure if there are any opportunities on the River Skerne for a conference or a centre, but you never know.
The sector deal also includes an ambition to build another 130,000 hotel rooms across the UK and to build in apprenticeships and mentoring schemes with business, all of which will help to strengthen this and make the whole industry increasingly professional. I was pleased, therefore, to hear from the hon. Member about the skills and the training in relation to the Skerne project. It will be very important to upskilling locals and keeping them in the area to earn their living.
To sum up, tourism is vital to the UK economy, and of course heritage is a big part of that, as well as all the things we have mentioned today, such as landscapes, access, places to stay—all the suggestions and ideas going into this project, not least the Durham Ox. I do not know if that is going to be a museum about the ox or a model being built of the ox, but I will be fascinated to find out what happens. I really hope that the hon. Member keeps the Department posted about how it is going. I wish him all the best of luck with it. Such projects always deserve a champion, and the House of Commons is just the right place to raise it, to get a bit of attention for the project and to entice more people up there. As the arts, heritage and tourism Minister, I would like to commend it and celebrate it. We need to celebrate and showcase these great things about our nation that will benefit the economy, bring local communities together, make them proud of where they live and make the rest of us proud of our glorious UK.

Stephen Doughty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the unusual nature of raising a point of   order at this time of day, after the Adjournment debate, but I wonder whether you have had any notice of a possible statement at some point by the Home Secretary to explain why the Prime Minister is currently attending a clearly party political electioneering stunt in Wakefield with what appears to be upwards of 50 police officers surrounding him for the benefit of the media and the Prime Minister’s clearly political speech. This is clearly entirely inappropriate.
I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee and we have regularly raised concerns about the lack of police resources. Many of us are often pictured with police officers—I am sure you have been yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker—when they are doing hard work in our communities, as they should be. Serious questions need to be asked about the use of police time in this way and the potential politicisation of the police. I wonder whether you have had any notice of the Home Secretary coming to explain why on earth this is going on.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is a somewhat unusual point in the proceedings for a point of order, but I understand why he wished to bring it forward at this moment, its having presumably only just come to his attention. I have had no notice of any forthcoming statement or debate from any Ministers on this matter. However, the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers are certainly very careful to make sure that the House is always kept informed about matters concerning security—security for Members of Parliament, security for Ministers, and also, one would presume, the security of the Prime Minister. I am sure that if any further explanation about what is currently happening is required, Ministers will keep the House informed. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.